Incest Is Fun

⚡ 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 INFORMATION AVAILABLE CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

The “true” self may or may not exist, but our ideals and projections about it sure do.
Posted April 28, 2008 | Reviewed by Devon Frye
Fellow "Experiments in Philosophy" blogger Jesse Prinz posted about UVA psychologist Jon Haidt's work on political differences. I want to continue exploring the philosophical implications of Haidt's work by asking whether it's all right for Julie and her brother Mark to have sex.
Here's a scenario drawn from a study Haidt conducted:
article continues after advertisement
"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night, they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it okay for them to make love?"
If you're like most people, your response is "absolutely not," but you'll find it more difficult than you think to come up with a justification. "Genetic defects from inbreeding." Yes, but they were using two forms of birth control. (And in the vanishingly small chance of pregnancy, Julie can get an abortion.) "It will mess them up emotionally." On the contrary, they enjoyed the act and it brought them closer together. "It's illegal." Not in France. "It's disgusting." For you, maybe, but not for them (obviously). Do you really want to say that private acts are morally wrong just because a lot of people find those acts disgusting? And so on.
The scenario, of course, is designed to ward off the most common moral objections to incest, and in doing so demonstrate that much of moral reasoning is a post-hoc affair—a way of justifying judgments that you've already reached though an emotional gut response to a situation. Although we like to think of ourselves as arriving at our moral judgments after painstaking rational deliberation (or at least some kind of deliberation) Haidt's model—the "social intuititionist model"—sees the process as just the reverse. We judge and then we reason. Reason is the press secretary of the emotions, as Haidt is fond of saying—the ex post facto spin doctor of beliefs we've arrived at through a largely intuitive process.
As Haidt recognizes, his theory can be placed within a grand tradition of moral psychology and philosophy—a return to an emphasis on the emotions which began in full force with the work of Scottish philosophers Adam Smith and David Hume. Although the more rationalist theories of Piaget and Kohlberg were dominant for much of the twentieth century, Haidt-style views have gained more and more adherents over the last 10 years. Which leads to the question: are there any philosophical/ethical implications of this model, should it be the right one? Plenty, in my view, and I'll conclude this post by mentioning just a few of them.
article continues after advertisement
First, although Haidt may disagree (see my interview with him for a discussion about this issue), I believe Haidt's model supports a subjectivist view about the nature of moral beliefs. My thinking is as follows: We arrive at our judgments through our emotionally charged intuitions—intuitions that do not track any kind of objective moral truth, but instead are artifacts of our biological and cultural histories. Haidt's model reveals that there is quite a bit of self-deception bound up in moral beliefs and practice. The strength of these intuitions leads us to believe that the truth of our moral judgments is "self-evident"—think: the Declaration of Independence—in other words, that they correspond to an objective moral reality of some kind. That is why we try so hard to justify them after the fact. But we have little to no reason to believe that this moral reality exists.
(I should add that contrary to the views of newspaper columnists across the country, claiming that a view might lead to moral relativism or subjectivism is not equivalent to saying that the view is false. This is not a reductio ad absurdum. If Haidt's model is vindicated scientifically, and it does indeed entail that moral relativism or subjectivism is true, then we have to accept it. Rejecting a theory just because you feel uncomfortable about its implications is a far more skeptical or nihilistic stance than anything I've discussed in this post.)
Second, and less abstractly, I think it would make sense to subject our own values to far more critical scrutiny than we're accustomed to doing. If Haidt is right, our values may not be on the secure footing that we believe them to be. We could very well find that upon reflection, many of our values do not reflect our considered beliefs about what makes for a good life.
article continues after advertisement
It's important to note that Haidt does not claim that it's impossible for reason to change our moral values or the values of others. He just believes that this kind of process happens far less frequently than we believe—and furthermore, that when values are affected by reason, it is because reason triggers a new emotional response which, in turn, starts a new chain of justification.
Finally, I think we might become a little more tolerant of the moral views of others (within limits, of course—sometimes too much tolerance is tantamount to suicide). Everyone is morally motivated, as Haidt says: liberals should stop thinking of conservatives as motivated only by greed and racism. And conservatives should stop thinking of liberals as—as Jesse Prinz puts it in his post—"either tree-hugging fools or calculating agents of moral degeneracy."
More importantly, if Haidt is correct, we must recognize even the people we consider to be the epitome of pure evil—the Islamic fundamentalists who engineered 9/11, for example—are motivated by moral goals, however distorted we find them to be. As Haidt told me in our interview:
"One of the most psychologically stupid things anyone ever said is that the 9/11 terrorists did this because they hate our freedom. That's just idiotic. Nobody says: 'They're free over there. I hate that. I want to kill them.' They did this because they hate us; they're angry at us for many reasons, and terrorism and violence are 'moral' actions—by which I don't mean morally right, I mean morally motivated."
article continues after advertisement
It seems plausible that in order to shape our policies properly, we need to have an accurate understanding of the moral motivations of the people with whom we're at war.
Haidt, J . (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review. 108, 814-834
August 2005 interview with Jon Haidt in The Believer.
Tamler Sommers is a professor of philosophy at the University of Houston.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
Are you a Therapist? Get Listed Today
Psychology Today © 2021 Sussex Publishers, LLC
The “true” self may or may not exist, but our ideals and projections about it sure do.

Laws regarding incest (i.e. sexual activity between family members or close relatives) vary considerably between jurisdictions, and depend on the type of sexual activity and the nature of the family relationship of the parties involved, as well as the age and sex of the parties. Besides legal prohibitions, at least some forms of incest are also socially taboo or frowned upon in most cultures around the world.
Incest laws may involve restrictions on marriage rights, which also vary between jurisdictions. When incest involves an adult and a child, it is considered to be a form of child sexual abuse.[1][2] When it is between two consenting adults, it is sometimes called consanguinamory.[3][4]
Laws regarding incest are sometimes expressed in terms of degrees of relationship. The degree of relationship is calculated by counting the number of generations back to a common ancestor. Consanguinity (but not affinity) relationships may be summarized as follows:
Most laws regarding prohibited degree of kinship concern relations of r = 25% or higher, while most permit unions of individuals with r = 12.5% or lower. In 24 states of the United States, cousin marriages are prohibited. Also, most laws make no provision for the rare case of marriage between double first cousins. Incest laws may also include prohibitions of unions between biologically unrelated individuals if there is a close legal relationship, such as adoption or step relations.
  Prison for opposite-sex couples, legal for same-sex couples
  Illegal only if it provokes public scandal
  Illegal (up to life imprisonment)
 Death penalty in Taliban-controlled territories[8]
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Siblings
Related by blood or adoption
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full siblings
Relationship by consanguinity or affinity in such a way that they cannot legally marry except otherwise provided in other laws
Blood relatives prohibited by religious law
Child/parent or grandchild/grandparent
Full and half-siblings
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full siblings
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Siblings
Related by blood or adoption
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full siblings
Up to 6 years in prison (direct line)
Up to 2 years in prison (siblings)
Grandparent, parent, child or grandchild
Brother or half brother, sister or half-sister
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
Grandparent, parent, child or grandchild
Related by blood or adoption
Blood relatives whose marriage is prohibited by respective law
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
From 3 months to 3 years in prison[13]
 legal (for same-sex couples and if both under 18) /
 Illegal (for opposite-sex couples)
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full and half-siblings
Up to 3 years in prison and fine
(not punished if both are minors)
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full and half-siblings
More than 10 years in prison for the ascending relative if the descending relative is under 15 years old, imprisonment if 15 but not 18 years old, and up to 2 years in prison if 18 years and older
Up to 2 years in prison if siblings or half-siblings
Grandfather, father, brother, son (female)
Grandmother, mother, sister, daughter (male)
Up to 20 years in prison (male)
Up to 14 years in prison (female)
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full and half-siblings
Up to 8 years in prison for ascending relative
Up to 12 years if descending relative is between 15 and 17 years old
Up to 4 years in prison for siblings
Nothing mentioned about incest in Indian laws but it's considered and punished as rape and sexual exploitation in most cases.
Aceh territory:
Up to 10 months in jail[14]
 Illegal (opposite-sex couples)
 Legal (same-sex couples)
Granddaughter, daughter, mother, sister or half-sister (male)
Grandfather, father, son, brother or half-brother (female)
Up to 10 years in prison (male and female)
Blood relatives prohibited by religious law
Step-mother
Underage relative by blood or adoption
 Illegal (if it provokes public scandal)
commits an indecent act upon or engages in sexual intercourse etc. with another person "under eighteen years of age by taking advantage of the influence arising from the fact of having custody of that person" [16]
From 6 months to 10 years in prison
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Half or full sibling
Uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of whole blood
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
Relatives prohibited by religious law
From 6 to 20 years in prison
Whipping
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full or half-siblings
5+ years in prison (consensual)
10+ years (non-consensual)[19]
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Siblings
Stepfamily
wife or former wife of father, grandfather and further ancestors
Mother, grandmother and further ancestors
Daughter, granddaughter and further descendants
full or half-sister
parents' sisters, grandparents' sisters and further ancestors' sisters
daughter, granddaughter and further descendant of full or half-sibling
suckling ancestor
suckling sister
Mother, grandmother and further ancestors of wife or former wife
Daughter, granddaughter of wife or former wife
Wife or former wife of true son or grandson and further descendants
 Legal (for sexual activity if both over 18) / Illegal (marriage only)
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full and half siblings
Collateral relatives by blood within the fourth civil degree
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Guardian or ward
Full, half and step-siblings
Underage relative by blood
Underage sibling
Daughter or son, mother or father, grandson or granddaughter, grandmother or grandfather
Sister or half-sister, brother or half-brother
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
Underage lineal relative
Underage sibling
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Within the first degree of consanguinuity
Within the first degree of affinity
Adoptive parent/child
Up to 3 years in prison and fine
(not punished if both are minors)
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Half or full sibling, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full siblings
Lineal ancestors and descendants
Full siblings
Lineal ancestors and descendants or their spouses
Sister, brother or their children, aunt or uncle
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
 Death penalty if same-sex relations;
Additional punishment of up to 5 years in prison otherwise[22]
Lineal relatives by blood
Collateral relatives within the third degree of relationship by blood
Granddaughter, daughter, sister or mother (male)
Grandfather, father, brother or son (female)
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
Grandmother, mother, half or full sister, daughter, granddaughter, wife's mother, wife's daughter, aunt, sibling's daughter, son's wife, cousin, father's wife (male)
Grandfather, father, half or full brother, son, grandson, husbands's father, husband's son, uncle, sibling's son, daughter's husband, cousin, mother's husband (female)
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
Up to 7 years in prison
Up to life imprisonment if relative is below 18[24]
Blood relatives prohibited by religious law
Parent, grandparent, child, grandchild
Brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister
Uncle or aunt
Nephew or niece
Up to 2 years imprisonment for sex between adult relatives (penetration)[26]
Up to 14 years imprisonment for sexual activity with a child family member[27]
Granddaughter, daughter, sister, mother (male)
Grandfather, father, brother, son (female)
Same-sex relations are always prohibited
Consensual incest between adults is legal in Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast).[29]
In South Africa, since 2007, incest is the sexual penetration between persons who are related as follows:
Before 2007, incest was a common law offence which extended to the same degrees of relationship but which applied only to vaginal intercourse.[31]
In Zimbabwe, most forms of incest are illegal and an offender is currently liable to a fine up to or exceeding level fourteen (about US$5000) or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or both.[32] Incest is classified as "sexual intercourse within a prohibited degree of relationship".[33] A prohibited degree of relationship would be that of a parent and their natural or adoptive child, a step-parent and their step-child, whether the step-child's parent and step-parent are married under the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] or the Customary Marriages Act [Chapter 5:07], or are parties to an unregistered customary law marriage, and whether or not the child was over the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage; a brother and sister, whether of whole or half blood; or an uncle and his niece; or a grand-uncle and his grand-niece; or an aunt and her nephew; or a grand-aunt and her grand-nephew; or a grandparent and their grandchild and any person and their first or second cousin. In cases of first and second cousins an individual charged with such a crime can raise a defense that the cultural or religious customs or traditions of the community to which they belong does not prohibit marriage between first or second cousins; or in the case of a person who is a member of a community governed by customary law, that the cultural or religious customs or traditions of the particular community to which they belong does not prohibit marriage between first or second cousins.
In Argentina, incest is legal if both individuals are over the minimum age of consent.[34] Marriage between third-degree relatives and beyond is allowed, with the exception of marriage involving lineal ancestors and descendants, which is considered null and void disregarding the degree of separation (parent/offspring, grandparent-grandchild).[35]
Brazil has no criminal punishment if the involved are over the age of 14 (the clear age of consent in force; before 2011, though, sex with people as young as 12 and as elder as 17 was in a legal grey area, with legal guardian-reported sex with those aged 12 and 13 being prosecuted as statutory rape, but unlike as with those aged 11 and younger not directly prosecuted by the State without a report by either the legal guardians or the adolescents themselves—unlike now, where the police forces prosecute all statutory rape-related cases without distinction—, and legal guardian-reported sex with those aged 14, 15, 16 and 17 being prosecuted as corruption of minors, but prosecution as corruption of minors for non-commercial consented sexual activity between people out of a defined hierarchy fell), capable of acting upon their legal rights, and that consent means that the relationship is absent of any kind of coercion or fraud.[citation needed]
First cousin marriages, once fairly common in some regions in the 19th century, are allowed on demand as all other marriages, while avunculate ones (those between uncles or aunts and nephews or nieces), the preferred by some Amazonian Amerindian tribes, and those between half-siblings, are allowed provided that those contracting it have a health check.[36][37][38] Marriages between parents and their children (both consanguineous and adoptive) or between siblings (both consanguineous and adoptive) are invalid, but, as stated above, non-rape sexual relationships between persons older than the age of consent are likely otherwise treated legally as all others, irrespectively of consanguinity (information over the possibility or validity of uniões estáveis in such situations are nevertheless unclear or unexistent, but since those in these relationships are already consanguineous and thus inherently inside a legal family entity, the rights offered by such unions—recognizing a family e
Nylon Knee Socks 18
Naked Women 18
Erotic Film Cinema
Zenith Trans Oceanic H500 Vintage Tube Radio
Inurl Php Mature 4
What’s the Matter With a Little Brother/Sister Action ...
Legality of incest - Wikipedia
'Incest' mum and son 'caught having sex after son's wife ...
Mother-Son Incest: Hidden in Shame and Rising - ABC News
Incest is Best - Excellent - The Stranger
three young women having fun at the hen party Stock Video ...
7 Incestuous Couples That Scandalized The Big And Small ...
GIRLS HAVING FUN SHOWS BOYS AND GIRLS - video Dailymotion
How Close Is Too Close Between Mother and Son?
Incest Is Fun