this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
409 points (94.6% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40841 readers
3652 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On the one hand anything between consenting adults is good and valid.
On the other hand, incest is too ingrained of a taboo for me yet.
The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral. Also there's a good chance childhood trauma is at play for siblings to want to bang, or at the very least some questionable power dynamics, that are worth at least looking into. Supposing none of that is an issue I guess I'm not going to yuck someone else's yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing π€·ββοΈ
one could ask the question whether inbreeding is fine as long as it's exclusively non-productive sex, i.e. they don't make any children. some people have sex just for enjoyment.
Obviously itβs against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.
Yeah, but it seems a bit eugenical.
You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra "fuck you" to the human race.
If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they'd bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?
Who's to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.
If the parents' families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?
What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?
Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down's Syndrome?
I'd rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
It's definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren't considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it's fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they're generally beneficial for children.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.
While I tend to agree, that's a highly controversial view (see eugenics).
My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don't need to see shit!
Eugenics isn't inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you're a eugenicist.
Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You're preferring genes again! Don't like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes...
Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won't live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you've practiced eugenics!!
Eugenics itself is not bad. It's the racist fuck desire to want to "cleanse" the "race" of humanity that's bad.
Colloquially eugenics refers not to personal preferences, but to collective imperatives, as far as I know.
Nah, not necessarily imperative. An individual can still be a eugenicist without external support. The only reason the old beliefs that often get credited as "eugenics" were mostly wrong is because they were mostly just ignorance and masked racism, not actual genetic analysis.
All it takes to be a eugenicist is to believe that certain people shouldn't have children because you believe their genes are bad. That's it. It's literally just:
Eu: Prefix meaning "good" Gene: Relating to genes ecist: Believer (not totally sure on this one as search results to verify my beliefs mostly returned "-ition" results, with no explicit statements for -ecist or similar)
It's just a silly thing for a common fool to believe in, since genetics is complicated! Many confirmed genetic disorders are not inheritable. Many health issues are latent. You can have two totally healthy people birth genetic defects nigh 100% of the time. On the other end, someone with certain genetic disorders can absolutely have totally fine children with little extra worry. It completely depends on what genes are messed up and why.
Someone unfamiliar with the INSANE complexity of biology even in the basics of reproduction have zero right to hold a strong opinion on eugenics, IMO. (which of course immediately excludes 99% of conservative fuckwits who would happily call themselves eugenicists)
Why'd you have to bring my potato body into this?
It sort of also assumed that just because relatives are fucking that they'll even have a kid.
I'm quite the same honestly, but like you said - there isn't a need to be a dick about it, already a surplus of them around.
In terms of birth defects, that may be right. But it really depends on the generation of in-breading. A single generation wouldnt do much harm but has the potential to if it continues. Of course, about the trauma and power dynamic bits, that may be a hit or miss as it doesn't really hold.
Incest is almost never between two consenting adults. There is almost always an inappropriate power dynamic, coercion, and/or grooming.
I don't think we have enough data to make that assumption.
That is correct, and that is why we shouldn't make any wild assumptions which dont hold up to the facts. This is essentially shooting blindly within the smoke - there are better ways than relying on assumptions or the "feel".
No, it's pretty well studied.
Only abstract is available by that link.
And the abstract doesn't support your exact claims.
Also:
Do you call this well studied?
Yes.
Feel free to review any of the 54,000 scientific papers if you don't like the one I shared. If you'd read and understood the abstract, you'd have seen that it is both an original study and review of the field of previous research. The page also includes links directly to dozens of related and cited papers. Psychological and behavioral studies are typically case studies, or group studies like this. This is considered a larger study in the field.
Feel free to present any paper that supports your counterclaim that there is simply not enough known about the issue to determine whether sibling incest is harmful or not. Please be sure that is is from this century and well-cited, since I did you the same courtesy. You can access full-text articles through an academic login, many public libraries, or archive sites.
I think we do.
But then the problem is the grooming not the incest so grooming should be the taboo
Both can be Taboo, and should be.
So in the cases where it is not, you'd allow incest?
β¦yet?
They're working on it apparently
Yeah. To not be upset about it seems logical and fair.
But I still feel uneasy.
I agree, as long as consent is stated then no harm is done. Consent between people is important; but in these cases, they should know where they stand
In cases of close family sexual contact, consent is not a matter of a simple statement. There are lots of reasons why a person might make a statement of consent while they are in fact unwilling or unable to consent. This is always true, but particularly so in dealing with close family sexual contact.