Is Incest Wrong During a Zombie Apocalypse?

[Egg Bandage Boy]

Here's a question, whilst we're on this subject: Would the child of a brother and sister pairing be any worse or better, genetically, than the child of a parent and child pairing?

[MashPotato]

My genetic knowledge is REALLY rusty, but I think it depends on the pairing. A brother-sister pair on average will share 50% of the same genes, but it could be less (as a visual example regarding skin colour, here's an article) or it could be more. The amount of genetic relatedness depends on the random egg/sperm combo. A child-parent pair, on the other hand, WILL share 50% of the same genes.  (note: I'm not taking into account the amount of difference an X/Y chromosome would cause).  Someone can correct me on this if my thinking is wrong

[VamyreLord]

Let's not.

VamyreLord, you can have your personal opinions, but be aware that homophobic content isn't permitted on these forums.

No problem.

[Franklin]

 

 

 

I slightly disagree with you. Incest may actually be natural. There's evidence that there is sexual attraction between parents, children, and siblings. There is an unknown psychological attraction to our parents.

 

Even if some people and cultures do it before it doesn't mean it's natural. There are people who are sexually attracted to objects; read this for fun: Sick people who need medical lobotomy

 

Do you think that's normal?

 

 

 

I have a little sister that is between 8 and 10, it is just disturbing to even think about it. Honestly, I would kill myself before even trying to commit incest to my sister.

Nobody ever said you had to! Nor did anyone say you had to force your sister (or brother) into sex. What I'm saying (I won't say anything for k12314) is that objectively there's nothing wrong with it. If they weren't related you wouldn't care, especially if they weren't having kids. 

 

I'm naturally not sexually attracted (read naturally again) to my sister or mom, therefore it is wrong if the opposite true. The same way I'm not naturally attracted to men because guess what?...it's wrong. Even if you commit incest or gay love and think it's fine, it's not, it means you are abnormal. Simple as that.

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong. What is a normal sexuality? There isn't a normal sexuality. Sex isn't black and white. It is complex because everyone is different sexually. Homosexuals are very natural and normal. If normal sex existed then the majority of people would have the same sexual interests. However, we know that's not that case. 

 

Some people say anal sex isn't natural. That's simply a lie. People can naturally get pleasure from their rectum. Sexual nerves are there for sexual activity. 

[Pixel Bombs]

I think this thread has spiraled into a different dimension holy shit

[k12314]

I think this thread has spiraled into a different dimension holy shit

 

*Doctor Who theme plays*

[VamyreLord]

 

 

 

 

I slightly disagree with you. Incest may actually be natural. There's evidence that there is sexual attraction between parents, children, and siblings. There is an unknown psychological attraction to our parents.

 

Even if some people and cultures do it before it doesn't mean it's natural. There are people who are sexually attracted to objects; read this for fun: Sick people who need medical lobotomy

 

Do you think that's normal?

 

 

 

I have a little sister that is between 8 and 10, it is just disturbing to even think about it. Honestly, I would kill myself before even trying to commit incest to my sister.

Nobody ever said you had to! Nor did anyone say you had to force your sister (or brother) into sex. What I'm saying (I won't say anything for k12314) is that objectively there's nothing wrong with it. If they weren't related you wouldn't care, especially if they weren't having kids. 

 

I'm naturally not sexually attracted (read naturally again) to my sister or mom, therefore it is wrong if the opposite true. The same way I'm not naturally attracted to men because guess what?...it's wrong. Even if you commit incest or gay love and think it's fine, it's not, it means you are abnormal. Simple as that.

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong. What is a normal sexuality? There isn't a normal sexuality. Sex isn't black and white. It is complex because everyone is different sexually. Homosexuals are very natural and normal. If normal sex existed then the majority of people would have the same sexual interests. However, we know that's not that case. 

 

Some people say anal sex isn't natural. That's simply a lie. People can naturally get pleasure from their rectum. Sexual nerves are there for sexual activity. 

 

I just said it, normal sexuality is male vs female. Even the animal kingdom agrees with this.

 

Anal sex, whether its normal or not it goes under "sexual activities" or "sexual pleasures", that is nothing wrong with that. You seem to take another turn here but I hope you get what I'm saying without me explaining myself any further.

[Rathlord]

You've both been warned to drop the discussion on homosexuality. Whether you're using the word or not, you're still talking about it. This is not the thread to discuss this. Next person to mention it in this thread is gonna get a 72 hour ban. You've been warned.

[Spaniard]

Whoops, I had posted that at the same time as you, Rathlord! I was just going to say don't lump me in with Vampire on that point, and this conversation totally did spiral out of control.

[Rathlord]

[lemmy101]

Homosexuality has been observed in tons of species, from primates like us, to dolphins, to parasitic worms. And cold hard population %'s aside, it's equally as 'natural' and 'normal' as any other type of sexuality. Any suggestion it is not, even with no malicious intent, is inherently homophobic and thus against the forum rules. No more of this kinda thing please, let's keep the thread on topi--oh wait what am I saying?

[Pixel Bombs]

Homosexuality has been observed in tons of species, from primates like us, to dolphins, to parasitic worms. And cold hard population %'s aside, it's equally as 'natural' and 'normal' as any other type of sexuality. Any suggestion it is not, even with no malicious intent, is inherently homophobic and thus against the forum rules. No more of this kinda thing please, let's keep the thread on topi--oh wait what am I saying?

b-b-b-banned! oh wait, admin. he gets privileges nevermind. 

[EnigmaGrey]

 

Homosexuality has been observed in tons of species, from primates like us, to dolphins, to parasitic worms. And cold hard population %'s aside, it's equally as 'natural' and 'normal' as any other type of sexuality. Any suggestion it is not, even with no malicious intent, is inherently homophobic and thus against the forum rules. No more of this kinda thing please, let's keep the thread on topi--oh wait what am I saying?

b-b-b-banned! oh wait, admin. he gets privileges nevermind. 

 

He receives a stern look and a talking to.

Bad Lemmy.

Bad.

Now, return to the topic.

[Elliohow]

The reason its not a good idea, in laymen's terms, is because everyone carries two sets of genes, one set goes unused, one set used. When the sperm and egg thang happen the child gets some random combination of genes that could come from either set of the parents genes.

Often recessive genes with completely fucked mutations that would cause mental problems or birth defects are carried for hundreds of years by many successive generations totally without incident, because children will get the dominant equivelent of that gene from either parent instead.

Now you have a brother and a sister, if either of their parents have some dodgy recessive gene then there is a good chance all their children do too. and if some brother or sister urgh, both with his recessive gene, and suddenly you have a dramatically increased chance that the child won't have a dominant equivalent to relegate it, and the child will have to use those fucked up genes as active blueprint for growing body and mind, and therefore become deformed or have other...issues. And of course THEIR children would almost certainly have the same issues, and DEFINITELY would with their own bro/sis

So 1) It's gross. 2) It'd just lead to a civilization of deformed dumbos and 3) Every generation would get deformed and more dumb until it was just impossible to reproduce. At which point humanity dies, and has the shame of knocking on extinction's door as a bunch of

brother/sister fuckers.

Doesn't matter if there are zombies or not. don't bang siblings

By this logic about not passing on faulty recessive genes, two people each with 2 versions of a faulty recessive (or dominant) gene should not reproduce at all. Whether they are related or not. Lemmy I am disappoint

[Rathlord]

By this logic about not passing on faulty recessive genes, two people each with 2 versions of a faulty recessive (or dominant) gene should not reproduce at all. Whether they are related or not. Lemmy I am disappoint

 

 

Actually many people in this scenario do choose not to reproduce. The fact of the matter is, though, most strangers would have know way of knowing this. However, two relatives can be assured that their genes will be fucked somewhat.