Teenage Incest
🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Teenage Incest
GOODNIGHT MA’AM Queen dies aged 96 after 70 years of service leaving the UK in mourning
OLD APPLE Steve Job's daughter slams new iPhone 14 and says its 'same as old version'
TAKE NOTE Unsure if you’re owed stimulus payments? How to find out
CLAIM YOUR MONEY How do I claim my stimulus check? Step by step guide
THIS is the "world's most inbred family" with four generations of incest -including at least 14 kids with parents all related to each other.
Perverted patriarch of the oddball clan Tim Colt ran an "incest" farm in the Australian Outback where he raped his daughters and fathered their children, say reports.
Research, based on data published by the Children's Court Down Under, reveals how Tim fathered seven children - five girls and two boys - with wife June.
The fiend, who died in 2009, also had multiple kids with daughter Betty and his eldest girl Rhonda, the Daily Mail in Australia reports.
The 38-member Colt clan were forced to live in squalor in a sickening story of incest, neglect, and paedophilia that shocked the world when their story was first revealed.
Since then, the children have all been given court appointed pseudonyms to conceal their identities.
One of the members of the family - Frank Colt - was found guilty in 2020 of sexually assaulting a teen relative during a visit to the family farm near Yass in 2010.
The offence occurred two years before shocked police discovered the clan living in an isolated camp .
The disgusting details of the family - who moved between rural Victoria, Western Australia South Australia and the Northern Territory - were revealed after a gagging order on their gruesome family history ceased.
Their twisted family tree shows there were four known generations who were living together, including four kids who were the great-grandchildren and grandchildren of Tim Colt.
His youngest daughter had children to her brother Charlie, a court heard.
DNA testing discovered 11 of those children were the product of parents who were closely related to each another, say the shocking reports.
Also living in the camp were a dozen second or third-generation family members who were legally adults so not required to undergo DNA testing.
Three of the late Tim Colt’s daughters have been dragged through court trials, assaulted in prison, and ostracised in communities due to their inbred children – the products of rape and sexual relations with their own father and siblings.
In one Colt trial, Tim Colt's son Roderick was found guilty of raping his niece, who was also his half-sister.
The victim, Petra, was the biological child of Tim and Bettyand was also attacked by her uncle Frank in the back seat of his car during a visit to the family farm in February 2010, for which he was convicted.
She told police back in 2013 that she had never gone to school, lived "in a cult" and that "all my aunts, uncles and cousins have all been sleeping together".
Betty and Rhonda's sister Martha, who openly shared a "marital bed" with her brother Charlie Colt, gave birth to five children.
Their brood were likely fathered by Charlie, her own father Tim and another brother, Roderick, it was revoltingly revealed at her trial.
She was slapped with a two-year prison sentence after concealing the paternity of her kids, who were all proven to be the product of sexual relations with a biological relative by DNA tests.
Martha gave birth to three sons and three daughters, one of whom died, between 1988 and 2006.
She claimed the kids were the product of five casual encounters, a tale a judge called "demonstrably untrue".
The court heard how police intercepts of conversations between Martha and brother Charlie were brimming with "giggling and a degree of sexualised banter."
Charlie Colt - who originally faced 27 charges – was found not guilty on two charges and acquitted, with the balance being withdrawn.
Tim Colt's other two daughters were also convicted of perjury for attempting to hide the identity of their children's fathers.
Betty was convicted of four counts of perjury, one of lying under oath and one of perverting the course of justice, and was jailed for 14 months.
Rhonda also received a 14-month intensive corrections order for perjury.
DNA testing would reveal all four women had children whose fathers were the mothers’ own father or brother, or a half brother, uncle, nephew or grandfather.
Of the original 80 charges originally levelled against eight Colts – including incest, child sexual abuse, indecency against a child and perjury – many were dropped.
Charlie Colt, who originally faced 27 charges – was found not guilty on two charges and acquitted, with the balance being withdrawn.
Although all eight family members were imprisoned after their 2018 arrest, only half have subsequently received custodial sentences.
Suppression orders had remained on the family’s interbreeding practices and rampant sexual interactions as eight family members were before the courts.
Three family members, Roderick, Martha and Derek Colt, filed notices of intention to appeal in 2020, all of which have since expired.
The horrific family history intertwined with incest only began to emerge nearly nine years ago after authorities discovered nearly 40 relatives living in inhumane conditions in an outback bush camp.
They lived amongst an uninsulated shed, old caravans and tents on a New South Wales bush block that was found in 2012.
The Colt children were sleeping in tents without running water, toilets, or electricity, had shuffling gait, and could not speak intelligible English.
They spread to remote parts of Australia after the NSW farm was raided.
The clan travelled around the country performing at town halls, festivals and country shows, and even produced records with album covers featuring the patriarch and three children.
One sickening album was even entitled a collection of family "love songs".
Many of them have now reached adulthood and have shown marked improvement in personal hygiene and health - but they are still overshadowed by deprivations from their childhood.
Some have low slung ears or misaligned eyes as a result of inbreeding and they look decades older than their actual age.
King Charles III becomes oldest person in UK history to become monarch
Reports of 'active shooter' at IRS office in city rocked by horror crime wave
Death of 'world's Queen' leaves 'huge void' in US, royal experts say
Harry holds his head as he travels to Balmoral after learning of Queen's death
© 2020 THE SUN, US, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY | YOUR AD CHOICES | SITEMAP
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
The question is not whether you’ll change; you will. Research clearly shows that everyone’s personality traits shift over the years, often for the better. But who we end up becoming and how much we like that person are more in our control than we tend to think they are.
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
The question is not whether you’ll change; you will. Research clearly shows that everyone’s personality traits shift over the years, often for the better. But who we end up becoming and how much we like that person are more in our control than we tend to think they are.
instagram
twitter
instagram
youtube
tiktok
Naked Dutch Young Women
Stocking Toys Solo
Sensual Xvideo Com