Brother Sister Incest Fiction
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Brother Sister Incest Fiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ "SECTION THREE: From the Individual to Society" . Library of Congress . Retrieved 2008-04-07 . {{ cite web }} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= ( help )
I am not so certain this is an appropriate external link. Although it may very well be documenting actual cases of "positive" incest, the writing style is very sensationalized and erotic. Moreover, there is more than just incest documented. It openly advocates promiscuity, zoophilia , sex with minors, and possibly other paraphilias that I may have missed in a cursory overview of the site. I certainly don't intend to be the morality police here, I am speaking more to the link's relevance to the scope of this article, as well as the ability to verify whether or not the true stories are, indeed, true.
I figured it would be more polite to voice my concern here than to delete the link outright. -- cogpsy 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
Can anybody give me a citation to the Andrew Vachss quote about incest laws give privileged treatment to child rapists who grow their own victim? I would like to see what he has to say on this more specifically. -- Cardigan 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
Here is the source I pulled it in from [1] . It is linked to this article as well. Anacapa 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
It's sick and the article should clearly state that, saying "incest is a sick act" somewhere in the first paragraph. This isn't opinion it's fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.168.185 ( talk )
I have a question, if we reverse the birth process arent' all human beings the product of incest? Despite what one believes (creation or evolution), at some point someone had to be screwing 1) their family members to make a the large populations in teh first place and 2) bestiality if you have interspecies sex.
The incest avoidance between siblings probably only occurs in large populations, it doesn't make any sense that incest is wrong or disgusting since all human beings are the result of incest at some level.
Birth abnormalities are caused by this. It's just that the possibility of having birth abnormalities is extremely reduced in a large population, as everyone is a distant relative; only it isn't zero, so that's why abnormalities occur.-- Orthologist 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Different people define incest differently. Muslims find that marrying first cousins as not an illegal thing but getting married to half-siblings, step-siblings and step-parents (other than our full-blood related family members). I'm not sure about how this would relate to Christians and Jews. After years of marriage, Adam and Eve's children grew up to be adults. Surely, there were not many humans around at that time - so they had no choice but to marry one another.
[My discusion starts here]It isn't sick at all if both sides are in love with each other. I have no siblings and would never do anything like this, but I have no problem with thoes who do.
MJN SEIFER
i can see how in cases of rape you wold call it sick
when in most states it isn't even illegal .... i mean yes the idea may be frowned upon you can say that
but i dont think it is objective to call it sick in all cases calling it sick should apply to cases of rape but not
to consenting married adults
incest is a very beautiful and meaningful event in a child's life. It strengthens the familial bond, as I can personally attest, my sister and I have never been closer.
-Louis Maisel
31 McAlister Dr.
New Orleans, LA 70118
lmaisel@tulane.edu
And incest is sick, no matter how you dress up the terms, nothing good comes of fucking your sister.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantz ( talk • contribs ) 23:19, 2007 February 22
Who are you to judge myself and my family's activities?
-Louis Maisel
31 McAlister Dr.
New Orleans, LA 70118
lmaisel@tulane.edu
you know you have lost an argument when you have to resort to the statement of unfounded theories as fact... saying incest is sick over and over again won't make you right Shaggy AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
When the intro speaks of "sexual activity between close family members", does that include situations where two brothers or two sisters are masturbating at the same time in their shared bedroom but no sexual contact occurs. I can't recall ever seeing such a situation being referred as incestuous. I think if the siblings where brother and sister then that would be considered different. When the intro uses word "between" that seems to clearly imply contact or interaction beyond simply being in the same room. -- Cab88 15:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
I just wanted to post this on Template talk:Abuse , when I realized, that this page is properly watched by more people:
Does the link to Incest really belong in the Abuse-Box , and vice versa, does the box belong on this article? I really do not want to start a discussion on the topic in general, as the four (!) archived talk pages clearly indicate that it is a touchy subject. Neither do I want to make any statement on the morality, but my point is: Putting it in the box, directly under a heading and combined with Child sexual abuse none the less does exactly that. After taking only a short look at the sheer length of this article, one understands that it is a multi-layered subject, and putting it under the very clear headline of "Abuse" makes a statement, which I fear is far too bold for Wikipedia. I am not saying, Incest cannot be a part of abuse, or lead to abuse, but calling it abuse per se–and I feel Template:Abuse does just that—constitutes a gross oversimplification of a complex subject.
Therefore I suggest that the link to Incest be removed from Template:Abuse and the template from the article. I would welcome any thoughts on the idea. — Mütze 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
I think the article doesn't really explain covert vs overt incest very well. From a Google, it appears covert incest is e.g. when a parent relies on a child for emotional support that one would normally obtain from a partner. Whereas over incest I assume is sexual abuse? Someone with more understanding should improve it. How well accepted is the term covert incest? I've always thought of incest as involving sexual activity. Covert incest to me just doesn't sound like incest (I'm not saying it's not wrong, just that it doesn't fit my view of incest). Nil Einne 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
>>>Thee is a huge literature on parents seeking inappropriate emotional fulfilliment from children / debates within and around Freudian theory is full of it. I have never seen the term covert incest but if some people call it that, okay / however, I am sure that many people who do discuss this phenomenon do not call it covert incest. The point is simple / whatever the semantics, this is an entirely different topic from that of this article and discussion of it belongs in another article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
Yeah I added this when I was pretty outraged about the topic and ran up against several editors who have no clue about covert sex acts...despite many movies about non-contact sex acts (such as phone sex or online sex) they seem to believe that sex has to always involve contact to be 'real' sex. To claim that the covert incest content is unsourced or irrelevant to this article is just plain POV. This was well sourced content in an article full of original research. I just found a new website on this topic [2] for people with NPOV minds. I believe covert incest should be included here with distinct distinctions between overt and covert so no one is confused about which is which and so that this ugly, well hidden, and all too common form of parent-child sexual predation sees the light here.
As for the so-called controveries about covert incest I suspect that is all original research added here by other editors who have their own strong opinions about the topic. I read
a lot of psychological literature but I have yet to find professionals or others who have weighed in about covert incest from opposing POV's. Please fact check these so-called controversies so we can see who is asserting what about covert incest. Anacapa 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
The article seems to be illiterate, poorly worded and ethnocentric.
Some time ago, I neutralised some of the language (removing the perp - victim speak from the 'parental' section under 'forms of incest'). Objectively, incest is a sexual interaction. A victimological model would have to be presented as a theory, not as the basis of the main text.
There is still a lot of work to do, in both clearup, neutrality and also representing a sociological take on the revulsion occasionally caused by incest, right through to the parent - child level.
Anyone else think it might be helpful to link to the rotten.com article about this subject? They actually explain the motives very well.
Husbands and wives commit incest all the time, yet no one is charged. The Wookieepedian 06:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
Incest, from both a legal and biological standpoint, only occurs when the parties involved are blood-relations or within certain 'prohibited degrees of kinship'. Husbands and wives are typically not siblings or blood-related, biologically or by adoption. 207.216.10.130 10:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
You're missing his point, all human beings are related by common descent and ancestry, at some point we are ALL family and related. You can tell this just by looking at the shape of the human body it is fractal and the same throughout the entire human species.
Do you see what's happening? Each time you go further down through the 'generations' of this tree, your genetic connection becomes weaker and weaker, until it ceases to connect at all. Genetically, Shakespeare and I are about as related as a potato is to a mouse.
As for fractal shapes, fractals are a common mathematical occurance in almost everything (persisting, in some cases, to the molecular level), and are not reliable evidence of any kind of connection. 'Commonality of shape' is the result of evolutionary adaptation to a specific environment. For example: a tall, thin creature in a high-gravity environment likely wouldn't be able to support itself due to the center of gravity. Thusly, evolution would accomodate for this by producing stouter, stronger beings (quoted from http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-198794.html ).
I will end my diatribe here. :P Sorry it's so long. 207.216.14.202 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
there wasn't any single one first human.....
I have created a covert incest article. I do not know much about it, but I saw something written on this talk page and created it in case anyone who knows about it wants to expand upon it.
I have been looking throught the article yet this does not seem to be here. In a single generation of offspring bred through incest, by how much does the chance of deformity rise? This article did seem to be quite vague with this.
Krystel 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
I too would like to see more on the science of genetic deformation. After all unless another abnormal behavior was involved (rape, sexual assault, etc.) this is the only consequence of incest. 1Shaggy1 AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe fictional references in this section ought to be moved to Fiction. There is one instance of duplication that I can see, Song of Fire and Ice . Pendragon39 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
Perhaps that is why humanity is so messed up? The Wookieepedian 07:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [ reply ]
I've removed [ [3] ] some anime-related random trivia from the article. Though being an avid anime fan myself, I find this trivia to be redundant and not notable in the article's context.
Browsing through the article, I also have reservations against the "Incest in popular music" section. I believe it to be just a collection of random statements not adding into the article's quality or subject coverage. However, my proposed change would mean deleting a whole section. Being a new wikipedian, I'd like to ask the consensus for an opinion: does it really belong here?
nullie 09:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"Adult incest
Incest between adults occurs where there is no dependence on the adults as parent-child or sibling-sibling dependence precludes independent consent."
This doesnt make any sense. It seems to be saying that incest cant be consensual between adults due to power imbalances between the individuals concerned. A defendable hypothesis, perhaps, but POV, and I had to read it four times to work that out. Perhaps it should be replaced with something more matter of fact. e.g "Adult incest occurs between individuals who are close blood relations who have exceded their sociey's legal or cultural age of consent."
Apparently in Texas, since September 1st, 2005, cousin marriages are no longer allowed and is treated as a felony.
Or something like that.
As well as on the forums of that website. -MP, November 2006
Is sibling marriage legal anywhere in the world? Not necessary referring to marrying your siblings from your parents, but also half-siblings and stepsiblings.
BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 ( talk ) 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC). [ reply ]
Please in the future avoid muddying up the article by strewing it with POV from professionals (psychologists, etc) who treated individuals for depression "due to incest" or the treated individuals themselves and have an obvious bias due to an emotional connection. I suggest making a section to discuss treatment and try not to fluff it up with POV. It's indisputable that at least some people have needed treatment either directly (physical scarring, rape, etc) or indirectly (guilt, social pressure, etc) as a result of incest, but those treatment specialists are prone to making sweeping judgments about incest in general. Plenty of blind studies have shown that there are cases where incest caused no trauma. A red flag for POV should go up when you see words like "all", "every", "victim", "known", statements that don't qualify their information with discussing the scope of research and paragraphs of information based on studies of those in treatment for depression, etc. Please don't let this happen again, it wastes everyone's time trying to clean it up and I doubt I've even scratched the surface of what needs to be done. 68.184.85.78 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
This whole argument is unnecessary. The article speaks about incest NOT pedophilia, nor child sexual abuse. The only subject this addresses is incest and different cultural aspects of incest. Why are people trying to derail the discussion about incest with irrelevant arguments? Admittedly their are awful instances of children being sexually abused by parents or other relatives. But that is not the focus of this article. I despise pseudointellectual bullies.
-- 65.0.134.100 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
1. Sexual relations between people who may not legally marry, especially between close relatives 2. The crime of having such a relationship
1. sexual intercourse between closely related persons. 2. the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.
The definition we use in this article is far from complete as you show above and as earlier controversies about the definition in archived discussion show. I am tired of fighting semantics with editors who seem to see no need to define this term using common definitions from other dictionaries and other encyclopedias. However, I urge anyone else who cares about the all too common rape of the language for POV purposes to tackle this because incest is a complex concept that needs a complete and comprehensive definition to introduce it. 128.111.95.138 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Am I going out of my mind or this article is an advertisement for incestuous activities?
1st point. Let the children be children.
2nd point. Incestuous activities, in most cases if not all, start in childhood.
3rd point. Incestuous activities, in most cases if not all, are initiated by adults, or older family members. And, as two and two makes four, this is how we know it’s wrong.
4th point. Don’t confuse people by including scientific terms such as endogamy, or alleles. Those terms belong in botany and zoology.
5th point. According to whomever wrote this article, parental incest is inconclusive?? –meaning that it hasn’t been proven to be damaging to the child?? But “childhood sibling incest can cause serious psychological damage to the younger or less capable sibling according to researcher Richard Niolon.”
6th point. Incestuous activities that result from abuses of power are called CHILD SEXUAL ABUSES -and it is DEVASTATING TO THE VICTIM.
The current article on incest needs to be replaced by a real one.
Anakaren1 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
This content uses what appears to be original research to make claims that seem to have no NPOV sources. This content closely resembles the personal opinions of a number of editors in controversial earlier discussions on this discussion page rather than well-sourced NPOV critics or controversies. This content is unsourced original research as far as I can determine. Therefore, I pulled it intact and clarified the remaining content.
Before anyone gets too hot under the collar about this, please be nice enough to provide the NPOV basis for this content. There might indeed by critics of and controversies about covert incest but we need to source them well otherwise this content merely reflects the personal prejudices of those editors who are uncomfortable with including covert incest in this article. Please response with NPOV sources that we can use to replace weasel-worded statements like "many survivors and others argue", please show us all where the concept is being criticized and who is doing the criticisms, and please show us who calls this a "creation of pop psychology"...that is other than editors on this discussion page. I personally have seen no articles or books showing these so-called criticisms or controversies so I've got to wonder about this content. Do those editors who feel so strongly about this content have NPOV sources to back this content with genuine research or is the usual wiki shoutout where Jimmy Wales' Maoist mob rules (see the lastest issue of Fast Company with Jimmy on the cover)? 128.111.95.138 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
There are now at least 8 sources that show covert forms of incest from many disparate authors. I have been able to find NO published critics of the concept so please spare us original research on the critical content. If other editors do indeed have critical content about covert incest please provide sources so that we can create some sort of SOURCED NPOV balance here. A few controversies among us is far from enough cause to suggest that this issue is highly controversial to anyone else in the general public.
128.111.95.138 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Okay, is this supposed to be in the category of 'medical emergencies', or is this somebody's idea of vandalism? Thomasiscool 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
There's a twincest article on Wikipedia. Should it be merged with this one? Nargrakhan 16:51, 7 Ap
Asstr Dad
Shemale Sweety
Hot Milfs Strip