Incest Pussy
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Incest Pussy
Forbidden Fruit: Six Shocking Real Life Incest Stories Throughout History
By All That's Interesting | Checked By John Kuroski
All That's Interesting is a Brooklyn-based digital publisher that seeks out the stories to illuminate the past, present, and future.
33 Haunting Photos From The Killing Fields Of The Cambodian Genocide
Meet Amado Carrillo Fuentes, The Powerful Mexican Drug Trafficker Who Became The 'Lord Of The Skies'
The Strange Seductive Prowess of Pete Davidson
Female Teacher Jennifer Caswell, Who Raped 15-Year-Old Male Student, Ordered To Pay $1 Million To Family
Why Julia Fox Wore Underwear to the Grocery Store: The Case for Underwear as…
Join The All That's Interesting Weekly Dispatch
Born in 1922, wealthy American socialite Barbara Daly Baekeland ‘s modeling photos graced the pages of Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar . But while these images portrayed perfection, beneath the surface, Baekeland was suffering from severe mental instability.
Baekeland and her husband Brooks lived in extravagance: lavish parties, excessive drinking, and extramarital affairs from both sides. Brooks eventually grew tired of Barbara’s unstable personality, rude outbursts, and frequent suicide attempts. Brooks filed for divorce and their son, Antony, moved in with his mother.
Antony, like his mother, suffered from several mental illnesses, including schizophrenia. By the time Antony was 20, Barbara had heard from a friend that her son was romantically involved with a bisexual man named Jake Cooper.
In an attempt to “fix” her son, Barbara would hire prostitutes to coerce Antony into having sex. After many failed attempts, Barbara took matters into her own hands, allegedly manipulating her son into having sex with her in a desperate attempt to “cure” him.
But, tragically, unlike other cases of famous incest, this one ended in murder. On November 17, 1972, 25-year-old Antony killed his mother with a kitchen knife. When police arrived at the scene, Antony was ordering Chinese food. After his release from prison, Antony nearly stabbed his grandmother to death.
Therapists
:
Login
|
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
Are you a Therapist?
Get Listed Today
Get Help
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Members
Login
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
There are many temptations to organize our life around the experience of earlier trauma. But that may short-change the future—which starts by our envisioning something better.
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:
"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.
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.
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."
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.
Psychology Today © 2022 Sussex Publishers, LLC
There are many temptations to organize our life around the experience of earlier trauma. But that may short-change the future—which starts by our envisioning something better.
This website no longer supports Internet Explorer, which is now an outdated browser. For the best experience and your security, please visit
us using a different browser.
Social Links for Andrew Court
View Author Archive
email the author
Get author RSS feed
captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected
Error Code: MEDIA_ERR_SRC_NOT_SUPPORTED
No compatible source was found for this media.
Session ID: 2022-06-04:7e9a5434d10363f91b0af3ab Player Element ID: nyp-brightcove-player-1
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset restore all settings to the default values Done
Filed under
incest
relationships
sex and relationships
5/9/22
This story has been shared 92,512 times.
92,512
This story has been shared 80,446 times.
80,446
This story has been shared 52,412 times.
52,412
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
LinkedIn
Email
YouTube
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.
A Michigan mom who fell in love with her biological son says a rare “genetic” phenomenon is responsible for their red-hot romance.
Kim West, 57, got pregnant as a teenager, and gave up her baby boy, Ben Ford, for adoption in the mid-1980s.
Ford, who is now 38, tracked down his mother eight years ago, and the pair formed a close bond. Things quickly turned sexual, and they went public with their incestuous relationship in 2016, with West boasting she had “mind-blowing sex” with her son.
The couple has subsequently kept a low profile in a bid to avoid being prosecuted for their illegal sexual relations, but say science is the reason they can’t keep their hands off each other.
“This is not incest, it is GSA. We are like peas in a pod and are meant to be together,” West declared to New Day, speaking about a phenomenon known as “genetic sexual attraction.”
The phenomenon was first identified back in the 1980s by Barbara Gonyo, a woman who ran a Chicago-based support group for adoptees and their newfound relatives. She coined the term “GSA” after noting that numerous people associated with the group became sexually attracted to their family members when they first met as adults.
Psychologist Corinne Sweet previously told New Day that she has come across the phenomenon while treating patients who had been in foster homes.
“At a genetic level, we are conditioned to find people who look like us attractive,” Sweet stated. “We have an almost tribal connection with family members with similar features. At the same time, people who are adopted or fostered feel deeply rejected. They have experienced a profound wound which isn’t easily healed.”
She further explained: “So when a son meets his birth mother, he feels a great rush of need. There’s an attraction and a longing there, and when it’s combined with the appeal of genetic similarity, it becomes a very powerful and complex cocktail which is incredibly seductive.”
However, other medical experts are skeptical of GSA, with New York City sex therapist Ian Kerner telling Women’s Health that the phenomenon has never been scientifically studied.
“I think that our mating systems tend to seek out genetic difference more than similarity,” he declared. “In the case of incest or romantic love between family members, I think you have to look at it case by case instead of generalizing it as a disorder or genetic condition.”
Meanwhile, clinical psychologist John Mayer bluntly told the magazine: “My professional opinion is that GSA is an excuse to give these people permission to break social norms.”
However, West and Ford say GSA adequately explains the instant attraction they felt for one another.
“I know people will say we’re disgusting, tha
Squirt Cam Videos
The Escort Review
Moroccan Girls In Dubai