German brother and sister practice incest pt. 1

[thetrinh4269]

People this is wrong! Not because the bible says so, it because it feels wrong. I know this brother and sister can't help but fall in love. They're theory about it being scientific, how you get attracted to your genetic sibling,or relatives when you never have meet them. Gay marriage does not effect third person, because non of the partner can conceive (sorry). But incest can conceive not without genetic mutation. And the sister and the brother knows about it too. That's wrong on every level.

[Jackies1979]

@thetrinh4269 To me it doesn't feel wrong... so, whose feeling do we make the basis of morality? also, some feelings can be changed by arguments or getting to know people. did you not see that this family is unhappy when their dad is sent to jail? Well, when you never meet your sister the Westermarck effect may be absent. it depends on being around the persons, then you don't like them sexually. also, in a gay marriage often both partners can, and some do, conceive, and healthily.

[thetrinh4269]

@Jackies1979 It's opinion, I don't like incest, I don't hate it. But why risk the chance to have children when they can be genetically corrupted. These people tried to do that, even after their children been taking away from them. Adopt children, why don't they do that. Btw, I have gays friends, and when I say they can't conceive I mean they can't conceive together. For God's sake, incest shouldn't become conventional, but I don't detested if these people can't help their feelings.

[Jackies1979]

@thetrinh4269 Incest will not become conventional because of the Westermarck effect, even if it should get conventional, then nature would have to have found some way of getting rid of the "corrupting" mutations that people get from it. Otherwise it will not become conventional. just as people's sexual orientation is not significantly changed by acceptance of different "lifestyles". human beings have all been a little bisexual already in the middle ages and antiquity, maybe human...

[Jackies1979]

@Jackies1979 culture, friendship, polite behaviour etc. is even based on that trait which we share with the bonobos... also, what do you mean by "together"? did you mean i was claiming that two males and two females can conceive together? no, but there are cases where a gay and a lesbian couple join reproductive forces and some kids then have 4 parents... as for the genetic corruption, there are many other cases where this is allowed: old women, people with dominant genetic diseases...

[Jackies1979]

@Jackies1979 ironically in that case with huntington's disease, e.g., it is even quite sure in cases of two mutated alleles, that the child will get serious health problems at age of about 40... but no one forbids that they reproduce...

[Jackies1979]

@thetrinh4269 also, it is not impossible for incestuous partners to have perfectly healthy children, there is only a high risk that their will be genetic diseases in the kids. but that risk is not 100%.

[thisworldsfuckedup]

@thetrinh4269

agreed. but people are so stupid and disgusting they say that this "love" is right >.>

[Jackies1979]

@thisworldsfuckedup it IS right. I'm not saying that more people should do it (and they won't anyway), but in itself, this love is right, and he shouldn't be sent to jail for it...

[analikus]

Sorry to say that, but this video is full of pseudo blubber.

Your reasons and the examples you brought up (like that stupid hamlet case) have nothing to do with the significant danger this particular law tries to prevent. History shows that incest is likely to harm the unborn child. That is not an opinion or an assumption, this is a fact. I can´t see how gown up people like you can ignore a fact as heavy as this.

[analikus]

By the way, Susan K is slightly retarded. She has an inborn mental defect. This and the perverted nature of this bastard led to this abomination.

So let´s sum this up. Here we have a mentally ill mother, a perverted sicko and for children that are likely to have severe birth defects...and you give your applaus to it. Put your fist were your mouth is and stop making videos.

[ro3ox]

FUCKING NAZIS !!! its a disgraceful that a loving family is ripped apart, kids taken away and he was sent to jail for the purest emotion that of LOVE!!!

[DireDowns]

Who here is a fan of Naruto? What about the Uchiha clan? Surely a fair amount of incest occured in their community. They all look so very similar and they were practically confined to a ghetto community existance. They all have the potential to develope the sharingan, so I guess they they wanted to 'keep it in the family'.

Ah, fiction. Real life is a bitch sometimes.

[devlinslg]

Actually incest is commited more than often, more than people want to talk about it. According to me it is wrong but now that gay marriage is legalised in most parts of the world on the grounds that it does not harm a third person or the society, I think that incest should be allowed too seeing that it harms no other third person.And why is incest wrong? Because it is said so in the Bible. Well how did Adam and Eve's children bear children and bring up the generations.Just think about it........

[Jackies1979]

the claim about gay marriage being accepted in most parts of the world is wrong... there is, sadly, a tiny minority of countries which allow full same sex marriage... incest may harm a third person since disabilities are more common in incestuous constellations but as long as other such constellations are not illegal, there is no fairness in disallowing incestuous conceptions... incest occurs, but not very frequently (I'd doubt that it often happens)... and...

[Jackies1979]

and species do not exactly develop like it is said in the bible with adam and eve although there is some degree of incest in the development or evolution of species... in fact there are claims about a healthy mix of closeness and distance (something in between your brother and a completelely non-related animal) being best for selection, some societies are not allowed to marry people from outside the village etc...

[modibbo0607]

There was a man in our neighbourhood who lived with his adult daughter and they had two children together. Everybody knew, no one cared.

Incest itself is not necessarily detrimental, but it is easy to see how it could have started from an abusive relationship. Note cases in Austria and in the UK where the father raped his daughter over years.

[Jackies1979]

if a murderer becomes a successful gardener and only achieving that through his murder, creating thus wonderful flowers that people enjoy, would you forbid wonderful flowers then because they started from crime?

I hate how people concentrate on the incest aspect of the Austria case. incest is not at all the problem there: the rape, abuse, and deprivation of liberty is the horrible crime done here, what about the incest about it? in my view, it is overshadowed by the horrible crimes committed...

[modibbo0607]

An interesting way of thinking. The pharaos practised incest as well as there are some biblical references. I agree with you that there is no real logical reason why incest is particularily bad. However from a genetic perspective, prolonged incest over many generations increases the predominance of recessive characteristics which will eventually reduce viability among offspring. In other words, have fun, don't breed.

[Jackies1979]

thank you. i think it is also the correct way of thinking.

yes, normally people who are too closely related to each other simply do not breed at all ("Westermarck effect"), evolution took care for recessively inherited illnesses not spreading too much through incest... also the people affected will tend to be more and more infertile, the problem solves itself...

and: this is exactly the position I defend here or in 2nd part: the current laws forbid incest, not just actual "breeding"...

[DireDowns]

@modibbo0607

Wouldn't the issue be of child abusive rather than that of incest, in the case of a rape of a child?

[Jackies1979]

yeah, right :-)

[Jackies1979]

every one needs a little help from time to time, homo sapiens is an altruistic or group species...

[Jackies1979]

7 is a bit young, but yes, generally, if sex is consensual, without dependences, you're not tricked into it, you're not harming others (even if they might be disgusted) it is ok. Cool, maybe not, which you see from the fact that most sexual relations are "normal". I wouldn't advertise for incest or a too high age difference. The other relations seem to suit homo sapiens better... but I think you should not condemn them if criteria above are REALLY fulfilled...

[Jackies1979]

...which, I'm afraid to say, would mean annulling a non-negligeable number of "sane", "normal" different-sex marriages.

[Jackies1979]

this is also IMO, to be painfully honest, the reason why some people dislike that principle of consent as the primary moral rule for relationships: then they can't exercise power. Sexual relations, especially the usual, average ones are laden with power-struggles; in nature about every second copulation is said to be rape; sometimes humans seem to be no exception here, at least if you read rape in a broader sense or as "quasi"-rape...

[Jackies1979]

people simply think: we have to have rules that are easy to understand: not your sister, not your brother, not your mother, dad (forbidden to even think about it), not the same sex etc. they don't understand that whole concept of consent, as it plays no role in their relationships anyway, as long as it is a "normal", "sane" constellation, put your dick in! CONSENT IS ABSENT! Especially in males, and some partners even like that or have given up at an early stage... nice slogan.

[Jackies1979]

I am not saying that incest is cool, apart from children's "doctor games" I have had no sexual relations with siblings, relatives or parents. The Westermarck effect prevents incest in most cases. And quite fortunately! Otherwise disabilities would be more numerous. But sometimes the effect does not work. And I simply wouldn't condemn these cases. And I find it unbearable if such people (of those cases) are made suffer because the do sth w/ their private parts...

[Jackies1979]

1. why is a deficiency of intelligence (I don't say "retarded", it is an old term that somehow even implies that the kids haven been "drawn back" by some mysterious force) bad?

2. even if it was bad, the production of disabled kids in incestuous relationships can be prevented through the use of contraceptives, it's not the incest that is bad then.

3. older mothers are often very likely to bear a disabled (somehow "retarded") child, yet they are not forbidden to become pregnant or have sex...

[Jackies1979]

addendum: ... couples highly likely to pass on some deficiency ("retarded kids", e.g.) but not related are not forbidden to have sex... do you think this is just?

[Jackies1979]

btw I discuss that eugenics part in some detail in the second video...

[Jackies1979]

thank you

[Jackies1979]

? Can you explain?

[Sohaila95]

I am honestly surprised that they haven't recived outspoken support from the Gay rights community. I would have thought they would have been right there. I honestly am against the legalization of both forms of marriage, but if one is legal, they BOTH need to be legal! I's only fair! And as against it as I am, I really feel for this family! I honestly don't know what should happen, but they absolutely deserve to have a happy life. My two cents!

[Jackies1979]

well they did receive support from the majority of german newspapers; the gay rights community may have a tendency to be supportive of consensual incest more than others but also among them there is a natural tendency to avoid incest, they feel primarily that the queer things are important and may not yet have inplemented in their moral sense the feeling that incest is not wrong when performed responsibly

[Jackies1979]

they are no different from those non-queers thinking incest is wrong for themselves and (therefore) for others... I am also against all forms of marriage or other forms of the possession of humans even if it is mutual, but as long as it exists, it should be open to all, even relatives and interspecies relationships, maybe even self-reflexive marriages...

[freakazoidodo]

interspecies relationship doesn't involve mutual consent though. anyway, topics like socialism, utilitarianism, sympathy by other animal species, etc. are other matters. classical liberalism and mutual consent, which you seem to agree with, are good philosophies when it comes to the court case.

[Jackies1979]

interspecies relationships don't involve mutual consent? Why not? If the cow unmistakeably moves in the direction of the farmer or the dog clearly shows his interest and waves his tail etc. during his advances what is this but communicating consent? Consent is not dependendent upon verbal language skills... indeed I'd say that, quite ironically here, much of interhuman consensual sex happens without words -- like in animals if you will excuse that dualist-creationist phrase...

[freakazoidodo]

bestiality and adults having sex with minors are abuse, because it's people taking advantage of creatures that are less reasonable or intelligent and cannot defend themselves. if an adult has sex with an infant and the child seemingly enjoys it, would you consider that morally permissible?

[Jackies1979]

if the child only seemingly enjoys that or has been tricked into it and does in fact not enjoy it at all, it is morally most condemnable. there is a dutch book "Child Molesters?" of which I do not know whether it is pedophile propaganda or real, sound research. Not being a pedophile I can also not judge whether the statements or empirical observations it makes are correct. In it some cases of mutually satisfactory and consensual intergenerational relationships are described.

[Jackies1979]

Now this also goes very much against my personal emotive basis (as does interspecies sex, though a horse's dong is at least somewhat fascinating) but that even more...) as I cannot imagine having such a desire... but if there is a case in which the pedophile relationship is really really mutually consensual, I'm sorry, I would not condemn it.

[Jackies1979]

and, quite generally, is it abusive merely because somebody is less reasonable or intelligent than the other... then I guess, a fair number of all relationships on earth are pretty immoral... :-)

[Jackies1979]

now that I think about it, there can really be some instances of satisfying adult-non-adult contacts, even though I'm rather attracted to my own age group and often find myself (quite untypical for males, actually) unattracted even by 18-22 year olds...: But, no taboo on this channel: when I was a kid playing/running around, i remember (or maybe I dreamt it) I once tried to sniff the behind of my uncle and father when they were playing squash, they reacted disturbed or ignored me...

[Jackies1979]

when I was 11-14 I fantasized a lot about soccer players... and I know from some documentary movie that german filmmaker rosa von praunheim was playing with his father's penis on his own volition when he was five... although none of these examples involves orgasm or penetration, but I wouldn't say that intergenerational sex in unimaginable, even though it disgusts me most of all these "paraphilias"

[freakazoidodo]

you're missing the point. an animal or minor is unable to make rational decisions for itself, unlike adults.

[Jackies1979]

yes, but the whole thing is not about making rational decisions, it is just about making a decision about whether to have sex with another animal or not; reason has but a tiny role to play in erotics; and expressing consent for this type of activity lies in the capacity of both many non-human animals and minors... this is why it is for example legal in Germany to have a relationship with 16 yo's but only if they are not dependent on you... btw. are adults, according to you, not animals?

[Jackies1979]

the 16 yo can very well express dissent even if she/he is minor, sometimes it is not easy to express that dissent if the person is dependent on someone, hence the law somehow makes sense. it is not the age difference that makes pedophilia a bad thing, but that minors have a tendency to not want sex with adults, they dissent, pedophilia is not bad simply because they are minor or less intelligent, but because someone abuses his dependence relation or physical superiority to break the child's will

[Jackies1979]

on your view (to tell you why it's dangerous)... imagine a society where the "rational decision makers" with the balls say that it is good to have sex with children, even though they do not want that and sometimes try to defend themselves, would you do that there? The children have to do it cause they cannot make rational decisions for themselves, they have to do what the rational guys with the balls say is good...? Do you see that this "rational decision" thing is not the right criterion here??

[Jackies1979]

do you see that with your differentiation (only adults are rational/mature and can consciously decide to have sex, all others are immature/dependent, mere objects you must "protect" or patronize etc. they cannot make decisions, do not know what is good for them and so on) you do not give a fuck about consent or what a person wants or does not want! mere simplistic paternalist rules on what you may fuck and what not. this sadly is very much in line with what I said in replies to stinkupus below.

[freakazoidodo]

no, you're confusing stink's reasons with mine. he's for punishing adults who do incest because it leads to children with a higher likelihood of biological problems.

what i'm telling you is that bans on adults having sex with minors, non-human animals, or the mentally retarded should exist because those aren't reasonable actors. there has to be a limit somewhere when it comes to helpless beings.

[Jackies1979]

I replied to just this point you made. Minors, non-human animals and people with low intelligence can sometimes very well decide if they would like to have sex with you or not. I replied exactly to the point you made, but then connected my claims to what I said to stinkupus. Of course if somebody has a complete lack of communication skills either verbal or other then, yeah, I might totally agree you shouldn't copulate with them...

why do you keep using that old term "retarded"?

[Jackies1979]

of course, I couldn't agree more, you should not take advantage of helpless beings, the most cruel thing you can do... but that does not mean banning incest etc. altogether... do you guys not see all my comments?? I wonder because in another vid someone obviously did not read what I wrote... do you not have the comments starting: "yes", "the", "on", "do"??

[Jackies1979]

what if the dog wants it, you want it? Where is the helplessness? Somewhere around here, a swan fell in love with a little boat, a penguin fell in love with a human guy in the zoo and they are all pretty sad if you take that partner away. Where is the helplessness, it is in line with my complaints about stinky, all you wish to do is put paternalist limits on the "ok-zone" of copulations...

[freakazoidodo]

because the term retarded is still valid although political correctness tries to halt it. you've pointed to the possible exceptions regarding minors, non-human animals, and mentally retarded/challenged people, but that's irrelevant. the psychological and psychiatric communities have stated time and time again that those three groups are mentally deficient and can't make decisions for themselves. that's why they're dependent on others and the law to protect them. do some research.

[Jackies1979]

it is still "valid" but only colloquially, if minors act irresponsibly, they sometimes are regarded as suffering from a mental disorder, so even minors are usually conceived of as in power over their actions... if (that's now for mentally handicapped cause that minor discussion is a bit on the edge) some people should protect dependent people we should also make sure that they can express their sexual desire as freely and uninhibitedly as possible.

[freakazoidodo]

there's nothing wrong with the word. they can express themselves sexually with each other, not with an adult who wants to take advantage of them.

[Jackies1979]

retarded means "drawn back", this does not really reflect what's going on or happened... some "retarded" people are adults! And you seem to take only the perspective that a "sane" person makes advances toward a "retarded" one, what if a beautiful retarded person approaches you? Where is the abuse in that case?

[Jackies1979]

or "delayed" (meaning of retarded).... what a nice inhibited, illusioned euphemism for it... just wait and see, he will start soon to become sane... this is what is wrong with the word retarded...

[freakazoidodo]

lol do you have a problem with the word housewife as well?

the groups that were discussed earlier cannot make sound decisions for themselves. are you saying psychologists, psychiatrists, biologists, animal therapists, pediatricians, and counselors are all wrong on that?

[Jackies1979]

no i don't have a problem with the word "housewife" -- I have a problem with the fact that there are "housewives" still today... unless they get paid for it by an employer other than husband... psychologists etc. do not say that... they used to in a way, but they were wrong, there are parts of life where these groups can make pretty sound decisions and this is (to get back to that again) the real reason why pedophilia is usually wrong: child soundly decides that having sex w/ so. is not what...

[Jackies1979]

he or she wants... the other view is pure paternalism... doctors know what is good for them, must "protect" etc... and are blind for the persons' needs and desires... which should really be the basis for how to interact with these "groups" you mentioned...

[freakazoidodo]

why do you have a problem with housewives and househusbands? medical experts say pedophilia, bestiality, and using mentally retarded people sexually is wrong. are you trying to argue with medical research?

[Jackies1979]

they cannot say that it is wrong cause that something is wrong is the business of ethics, not of medicine... and there is actually a quite remarkable distinction in medical practice; these paraphilias are pathological only if there is some suffering/pressure/pain involved in the act... so a consensual act between a mentally disabled person and a sane person is not "sick" or pathological at all, it is not even a paraphilia!!

[Jackies1979]

wikipedia quotes from the DSM:

The DSM describes them [paraphilias] as conditions which "are characterized by recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning

[freakazoidodo]

yes, they can comment on it, because they've studied the mind. they know what you say is wrong.

[Jackies1979]

?? explain...

[freakazoidodo]

i've explained it to you before, but u don't want to accept it. animals, children, and mentally disabled people sometimes refuse to get immunizations. is that reasonable and mature to you?

[Jackies1979]

ehm, well, some may do that, some other people also do that... statistically it is not reasonable but it does not exclude their being reasonable in other respects still, even if there is a significant correlation between refusing vaccines and being a child or mentally disabled or being an animal (btw. animals are the only objects capable of refusing something in the way you use it, so this statement about "animals" is not really informative...

[freakazoidodo]

animals aren't objects. anyway, the example is just one of many that demonstrates that animals, children, and mentally deficient people can't make decisions like most adults can for the most part.

[Jackies1979]

even if they have a worse ability to make rational decisions, should you deprive them of the possibility to make these decisions? The point is if they wish to have sex with somebody or not, not if they should get that immunization or sign such and such a contract. And even the groups you mention may have a very sound understanding of how sex works and which precautions you must take e.g. if it should be safe sex etc... notice again that this view respects people's desires...

[Jackies1979]

whereas your view does not seem to take them into account... why is pedophilia mostly wrong according to you? because kids cannot make sound decisions?? I would still say that you argue using inadequate principles... you see that in a way this might justify both the abusive pedophile and his paternalist opponent:

[Jackies1979]

abusive pedophile: "well even though the child does not like that, well, it cannot make sound decisions anyway, so I can do whatever I like.." paternalist opponent: "kids should not enjoy themselves by playing with each other, they may want that but, well, they cannot make sound decisions"

[Jackies1979]

plus, the consequences of having sex are often (if it's safe etc.) quite irrelevant to everday life, rather it sometimes makes people even happier, maybe except for the talking and gossiping, whereas the things you mention do have pretty dangerous consequences sometimes... so, a mentally deficient chick can have fun with a mentally sane chick with no problems even though the mentally deficient chick cannot (I wonder why, actually...) sign some rental agreement...

[thisworldsfuckedup]

@Jackies1979

wtf? "why is pedophilia mostly wrong according to you? because kids cannot make sound decisions??"

NOOO BUT ITS JUST SICK IN GENERAL!! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU *sickos these days....* -_-

[Jackies1979]

@thisworldsfuckedup "it's just sick" is neither a moral nor an objective criterion for judging things... where is the damage? where is the suffering over and above things that are accepted (old women bearing a child, genetically corrupted people fathering with nonrelatives, etc...)? even if that is bad, i.e., genetically corrupting offspring, it is not the INCEST about it that is bad...

[Jackies1979]

just as being gay is not bad because of higher hiv risks, it is much more moral if hiv- paul and tom have sex with each other than if hiv- paul did it unsafely with hiv+ sandy, so if sister and brother ann and michael get a perfectly healthy child, this is much more moral than 20 year old huntington patient destroying his child's life at 40 or 50 yo janet getting a baby whose life is hell because of genetic disease...

[thisworldsfuckedup]

@Jackies1979

Eww u supporting these disgusting freaks sickens me u r brainwashed into believing this "love" is "right".

[Jackies1979]

@thisworldsfuckedup To my knowledge I have never been brainwashed, did you see the video of them and how the two support each other etc....? There are tons of marriages and partnerships between non-relatives that are a catastrophe in relation to that love...

[thisworldsfuckedup]

@Jackies1979

its taboo and disgusting i will never except this "love" and thats gross that u would even consider calling urself one to prove an argument.

[Jackies1979]

@thisworldsfuckedup "taboo" and "disgusting" is no argument! read john stuart mill, please. "gross" is also NOT AN ARGUMENT, come with something substantial, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

[thisworldsfuckedup]

@Jackies1979

no

[Jackies1979]

@thisworldsfuckedup okay.

[thisworldsfuckedup]

U must be a pedo ursrlf.. Gross!

[Jackies1979]

@thisworldsfuckedup I am not a pedophile... Despite my lack of long-term partners (i am a little autistic/schizoid) the people I find attractive automatically turned out to be about my age, the mechanism of which I think is interesting neuropsychologically... even 19, 20 year olds started to fade a little out of my attractiveness scale when I went past 25, which is somewhat unusual for a male...

but even if I WERE a pedophile, this "argument" against my view would be an ad hominem fallacy.

[freakazoidodo]

many children refuse to eat vegetables or go to school. are parents wrong for making them do those things? do you really believe children should be allowed to do whatever they want?

[Jackies1979]

this is a straw person fallacy: i never said children should do whatever they want... if something will clearly harm them in the long run (bad diet or refuse education), they may be told what it leads to, yes (but you should never make children do something simply because YOU think it's good for them (paternalism)... also there are some things kids aren't allowed to clearly and where some intervention is appropriate: killing other kids or stabbing them with a knife, abusing them...

[Jackies1979]

but if there is no harm involved in the action, if they may do the action or not, should be determined by the kids' desires and preferences :-)

[freakazoidodo]

no, it was an analogy based on what you said earlier. you believe children, non-human animals, and mentally impaired people aren't capable of making decisions for themselves regarding things like food, yet you think they can about sex or relationships with adults. that isn't consistent. pet owners are responsible for taking care of their pets, and parents are responsible for caring for their children.

[Jackies1979]

why is it not consisent? I am perfectly reasonable regarding things like philosophy or cooking or, mostly at least, orthography and grammar, yet I am not at all "well versed" in history, e.g., is that inconsistent? Being unable in one area does not imply you are unable in all respects.... yes, and because people who live with non human animals or non-human persons and children care for them they should also care about their well being and sexual desires...

[Jackies1979]

if your dog falls in love with your neighbour and the love is requited, then you should support their relationship...

[freakazoidodo]

do some research. the medical community agrees with what i said. there has to be a boundary somewhere.

[Jackies1979]

yes, and that boundary lies where human people and other animals are harmed... the medical community also may only (indeed there is some progress, but some physicians are prejudiced human beings too) say that something is a disease but the forced treatment usually comes from the state or legal forces... you may refuse treatment (as is usually a patient's right) after you paid your fine for, say, promoting interspecies sex unless the judicial people force treatment on you.

[freakazoidodo]

did you read the articles on bestiality and pedophilia on wikipedia? this isn't just a moral issue, it's a medical one. any adult who's willing to have sex with an animal, child, or mentally disabled person is using that other being and you're allowing it.

[Jackies1979]

yes, it is a medical issue, in certain respects at least, but did you read the differentiation to be found in the manual for mental disorders? Now, good morning, welcome to the real world: any person who has sex with another person is using that person. how can she not? Now the crucial point is whether the non-human animal, child or mentally disabled person wants to have sex with a partner or not. Or if the "sane" adult wants to have sex when it is offered by a FUCK THAT CHARACTER RESTRICTION

[Jackies1979]

youtube lets users upload videos (!) and cannot allow more than 500 characters here... Or if the "sane" adult wants to have sex when it is offered by another, non-human animal or mentally disabled person or (well, as said, difficult to imagine but let's not call it inconceivable...) child, let's say underage person, not child. The point is mutual consent between the partners. No dependence, no tricks etc. No harm done. Happiness increased.... Then using each other is very much allowable!

[freakazoidodo]

ok, it's obvious from your rant that you didn't read the articles. and why are you cussing? lol. unlike consenting adults doing incest, pedophilia and bestiality DO harm innocent creatures. you and i agree the government should stay out of adults' personal lives, but you've crossed the line when you include those three groups into the picture. the medical community agrees with me. the economic community also agrees that socialism doesn't work. are you a hypocrite and support socialism too?

[Jackies1979]

where do they do harm? AS INCEST and PEDOPHILIA (of course it may very well be that most if not all instances of pedophilia are bad because somebody abuses her superiority or dependence relation!) but where is the harm resulting from incest and pedophilia as such? please specify that harm... you will see that it is exactly the harm that some dissenting being is forced to having sex, and this is quite bad and must be stopped, we totally agree here! Where is the harm coming intrinsically from it?

[Jackies1979]

please specify the harm you mentioned... and also you talk about "communities" "agreeing" on certain subjects... does that mean this is the end of a discussion...?? simply because they agree that something is wrong, it is wrong? Psychiatrists had for a long time "agreed" that homosexuality is wrong, now we know that it is a healthy norm variation...

[Jackies1979]

as for the question about my political views, I am, by chance, a democratic socialist... but this would be another topic

[freakazoidodo]

that was before medical information was as solid as it is today. why are you equating incest between adults and pedophilia?

if your adult child is normal and wanted to have sex with a non-human animal, mentally retarded person, or child, would you agree with his choice?

[Jackies1979]

no, I'm talking about today... I am not equating incest between adults and pedophilia, but the argument was also once made against p. singer in an interview when he talked about his neutral discussion of a book about interspecies sex... if that is in certain circumstances ok, then what about pedophilia... this was your argument against me and I would like to not overlook it... pedophilia seems even more horrible to us than incest and quite probably for a good reason because usually

[Jackies1979]

kids do not want to have sex with adults, there psyche may be harmed if there is an abuse of dependence relations and/or superiority of adults... but in case there is really no harm done, again, and imagine a case where it really is mutually consensual and the child wants to have an older partner, I am sorry to say it, in this rare case there is nothing intrinsically wrong with pedophelia... although that case is really so rare that laws against pedophilia seem to make sense...

[Jackies1979]

if my daughter or son and a mentally "retarded" person or non human animal fell in love with each other i would support them in their relationship.

[freakazoidodo]

You're citing Singer? He's been criticized by animal welfare and veterinary organizations for supporting bestiality, which is considered a form of animal abuse. Try some new credible sources. lol

[Jackies1979]

I don't really see what this new reply should show... I am not citing singer, i just said he was asked the same question about pedophilia after saying that interspecies sex may not always be wrong; and he also (I read that review he wrote) pointed out that some non-human animals clearly showed their sexual desire to human beings, so allowing it cannot be a form of sexual abuse. Rather, the chimp may become sad and pretty unhappy if rejected by the human he loves.

[freakazoidodo]

there have to be boundaries to protect innocent parties that can't consent. you ignore this universally agreed moral principle when you ignore valid medical evidence and medical organizations regarding the topic. you obviously haven't done enough research on the subject. anyway, this issue is getting old, so i'm moving on.

[Jackies1979]

the parties I referred to can dissent and consent, if there are "parties" that cannot consent at all, then we must draw our own conclusions as to whether the sexual act gives them pleasure or not, if it harms them somehow (also in their development) etc; if they want it! Again that's the point: sex should never be merely exploitative from one side, the other "party" must also actively want it! if you penetrate a melon as a thing not able to give consent and not sentient at all I won't mind...

[Jackies1979]

just once again: in order to show how outdated these views of freakazoidodo about medical views are: an entry of a standard middle european medical dictionary: (I tranlate) "perversion: originally a religious term for heresy, in 19th century applied to sexual behaviour regarded as 'wrong' or harmful, today in colloquial language still extremely pejorative term, which sexual medicine rejects as scientifically not defensible because there is no naturally occurring socially desirable "correct" ...

[Jackies1979]

...sexual behaviour; hence, in psychopathology, the term 'sexual perversion' is restricted to addictive, limited, specialized sexual practices where sexual satisfaction and/or orgasm may be achieved only in this way."

There is an entry on sexual abuse, but this merely states: "collective term for sexual actions with persons not or restrictively able to give consent where the perpetrator has an advantage to the chagrin of the victim" (that's all for the medical definition, then) "*legal*...

[Jackies1979]

[my emphasis] regulations protect the right to freedom from sexual heteronomy" and then these legal regulations follow, most of which make sense and are in line with my position, e.g. contacts between "sane" people and people working in "institutions" for the handicapped, e.g., are only forbidden if a dependence relation is taken advantage of, no general prohibition here (at least not in central europe), neither medically nor legally!

[Jackies1979]

and what, according to you is the standard in medical community... the DSM from which I quoted seems a pretty good candidate... I had already done some research for you (done that before already, but especially for you I checked it again)

[Jackies1979]

sorry, there were language problems... an infant is kind of a baby... then I would have to know what kind of sex you mean, penetrations seems pretty much medically dangerous in that case, but, well, what do you mean here, e.g. an infant sucking his mothers breast, sleeping in father's lap... there body parts at least of the child may be touched as every parent knows, and from the touched the child may derive pleasure, but that is not sex...

[Lanais2]

Wow. Really, where are we going to draw the line?

[Jackies1979]

There where people and other animals would receive harm more than necessary, seen from a somewhat larger picture without neglecting the details... --- that may not be perfect and lead to much trouble still, but i think it's a good beginning to answer that question...

[freakazoidodo]

jackie, the problem is that most people don't want to mind their own business even when innocent people are not being affected.

btw what accent is that? your voice sounds pretty mature for a 29-year-old. heh

[Jackies1979]

yes, this is the nerve of the problem... i do support the Humean view that what gives pleasure when observed is good, what gives pain when observed bad, but these reactions are modifiable once you perceive how others feel and that there is really no harm done, people should be educated for these things... my first language is german but my awkward prosody somewhat distorts my accent indeed...

[freakazoidodo]

have you ever heard the proverb "ignorance is bliss"? that's the case for most people. emotions are more fun than facts. that's why ideologies like socialism spread so quickly.

[Jackies1979]

Person X has emotion A. This can be a fact. And it is this fact which is, according to Hume and me, the basis for all morality on earth. Do you think that socialism is mere feeling devoid of other arguments? I would not say that socialism is merely a moral theory, some part of politics may well be excluded or separated from morality although maybe all politics is also morally relevant...

[Jackies1979]

it is through emotion that emotions or: value judgements can be changed, this is what I was getting at... you cannot derive morality from fact; even if it is a fact that no harm is done in consensual incest with contraceptives, say, this is seen in all emancipatory movements...

[Jackies1979]

and it is also, to clarify these dense remarks, quite easy to turn that factual, generally utilitarian view of morality into an emotion-based humean form of morals; humans simply have a tendency to suffer if they watch others being harmed and they are indifferent if no one is harmed; cultivate that feeling... and get rid of the feeling "when I watch something I would never wanna do it's bad" -- this all combines utilitarianism, Mill's disgust-harm differentiation and Hume's emotivism... :-))

[Jackies1979]

to put that in better humean-naturalistic terms; the first feeling about the harm will simply prove to be better in society as it will contribute to peace, the other to disruption, evolutionarily the latter feeling (base morals on personal disgust *because the person herself doesn't want to do that thing*) will be less adaptive, i guess... and this also means that those trying to cultivate the better feeling (activism) will survive better than those cultivating the old feelings...

[freakazoidodo]

why are all your clips black and white?

[Jackies1979]

I checked the box in my camera options where it says: B/W for every video.

[freakazoidodo]

it's 2008. use color.

[oros123456]

no one is gonna do it just because they see it it kinda gets boring to watching the same thing plus there is an effect that happens sometimes which cause the siblings to have sexual feelings

[meistersamwise]

well im not into incest and i can frankly say i hope i never will but if there are people hu are well... good for them it doesnt hurt me or you to y the prejudice and no its not rong (at least i dont think so) its jus different and about people simply not being ably to grasp the idea of freedom thats so true its a sad thought but stuff like this is a great example

[Jackies1979]

hello, do you mean to say that it is a weird fetish to condemn incest? I do not seem to fully understand your comment. Do you consider incest or the condemnation of it a fetish? Fetish is usually a fascination with things not so directly human. or has this weird fetish remark nothing to do with the subject of the video, just general anti-germanic tirades? What do you mean by "illegitimate cases"? Although I criticize some conditions in Germany, I don't agree that Germanics are inherently nazi..

[SteveCrank]

fucking germans , germans are nazis burning people, yeah still burning people, every hundreds of houses of foreigerns are burnt down by fuck germans. Germans are childfuckers and sisterfuckers inzest everywhere

[Jackies1979]

yes, you are right, there have been some horrible instances of incendiarism with racist and/or xenophobic motivations, there are German Neonazis, in some areas 50% of people are racist and xenophobic; there are problems in Germany...

[Dugster11]

@ Jackies1979:

are you kidding me? where are 50 % of the people neonazies?

not in germany! o.O

maybe 5 or 10 % in the very very problem zones!!!

but not 50!

iam against racism and you can believe me!

i thinked you are informed about our condition!

[Jackies1979]

i said, surveys found that about 50% of the people in two provinces (highest percentage there) were somewhat xenophobic, not neonazi, that would be a lot indeed, the proportion of those is much smaller, but that nationalistic parties (often associated with neonazis) have been elected into some regional parliament (where Germans have a "5% hurdle" to get into those) is indeed also quite alarming...

[Jackies1979]

50% are racist and xenophobic, the proportion of neonazis is of course lower...

[Jackies1979]

since 1% of humans are said to have pedophile fantasies, there should also be some "childfuckers" around, and as you see in the CNN report, there ist at least one "sisterfucker" in Germany; and the problem is here, that he is condemned by the German courts for a consensual love with his sister; and with the last point I would disagress because ubiquitous incest will not be observed because the trait is somewhat maladaptive, if that's the right term...

[oros123456]

not every German was a Nazi and try to remember who's plan it was to rule the planet Hitler even thought they could rebel against him

[Jackies1979]

did they? there were some handful of people who did rebel and, yes, probably, a lot of them who secretly did not like hitler, protected jews and the like, but the majority all went with hitler...

[OsvaldoPaese]

I love your voice.

But yes, the argument is an itelligent one. I am from America and there are so many strange laws. I don't wish to be a lawmaker, i want people to have a lot of freedom, but most people are just not capable of handling freedom. Sorry.

[Micolo2225]

The earth is just filled with sexual perverts practicing all acts of sexual taboos, soon people would begin to sleep with animals

[Jackies1979]

almost everyone already does :-) homo sapiens is no plant, my friend...

[Jackies1979]

Thank you for your comment.

1. Having sex with your own flesh and blood is called masturbation, not incest,

2. Your desire to puke when hearing this is good for you. It decreases your risk of producing handicapped children, because your aversion will prevent you from copulating with close relatives... lucky one!

3. Notice that nowhere do I say that incest is a-okay or advertise for incest, but I just make the case that a law against it is unconstitutional and unjust....

[DeadAngel765]

That is why I am against marriage or any legal bullshit saying I am now bound to this person...if I WAS in an incestuous relationship, I wouldn't let authorities know and continue in my relationship perfectly happy...I still think it is wrong to try to control people's feelings for one another, whether it be sister or brother, or strangers. what they are saying to me, what I understand, is that i am safer with a total stranger than my own brother...is this correct?

[squishydemon]

thank you for your video response, the governments of the world are destroying humanity, i tire of hearing them trying to justify their actions in the upholding of democracy & freedom ...where is the democracy? where is the freedom? "family" is just a construct of ideas, everyone on this planet is incestuous at the genetic level, so wheres the problem? *sigh* im glad atleast someone has half a brain, thank you

[MinorOED]

I thought this was a very intriguing response to P. and S.'s dilemma; while, personally, I don't especially condone incest, I also am strongly opposed to Constitutional/governmental interference in the private lives of consenting adults. Unless their behavior is harmful to society, and I don't believe that a convincing case has truly been made that this is harmful, then personal liberties should remain intact. And the point on Eugenics was particularly apropos. This begs further consideration.

[tabrismacbeth]

Here's a good argument against incest: IT'S FUCKING INCEST! Nevermind all that stupid crap the government said. Just because fucking a dog in the ass won't impact society in any way (unless, of course, it becomes popular) doesn't mean it's A-okay to fuck a dog in the ass. Gay couples and interracial couples aren't exactly like...y'know, INCEST! If you continue with this train of logic, you will eventually come to pedophilia, beastiality, and maybe even ero guro.

-Tabris

[Jackies1979]

it's not an argument... if the dog agrees or is making himself or herself advances, so if interspecies intercourse is consensual, it is -- indeed -- A-okay for me... read Albee's *The Goat or Who is Sylvia"*

[Jackies1979]

probably incest, "skull fucking" (your other comment on original vid), and interspecies relationships won't become evolutionarily stable strategies (if exclusively practiced) anyway -- even if we don't make laws against these -- but I have a feeling that a population punishing consensual, empathic behaviour as the relationship between P. and S. will have much more evolutionary disadvantage than a population allowing and accepting such things....!