DeepSea
Banned
-
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2018
- Posts
- 426
Today, sexual relations between first-degree relatives are taboo in pretty much every culture around the world, but this wasn't always so. There have been advanced civilizations with high moral standards where first-degree incest was not just legal, but also religiously sanctioned. Incestuous marriages were so common in Persian Babylon that the rabbinic authors of the Babylonian Talmud declared it permissible for Noahides to sleep with their daughters and sisters.
Roman Egypt is a well-documented historical case where sibling marriage "becomes the norm rather than merely a common option" for 200 years. Yet there is "no indication of reduced marital fertility, sexual aversion, or increased infant and child mortality", which Walter Scheidel theorizes is because the Egyptian population's genepool was naturally low on harmful recessive genes. Scheidel uses Bittles and Neel and Ralls et al in his followup calculations and gives a putative increase in the infant mortality rate in brother-sister pairings from the normal 52.6% to... 60.2%. Which wasn't, as mentioned before, even observed at all in the Egyptian historical record.
First-degree incest increases the chance of birth defects and other problems, but it depends on the recessive genes you actually have, and the rates are probably far lower than people are led to believe from Soviet-era research that was done on children whose parents were mental patients and had horrible genetics. Today, we have genetic counseling that can determine the risks associated with incestuous pregnancy in individual cases, and abortion is possible if the fetus is defective. I'm not saying people should get their sisters or daughters pregnant, but if it does happen, that doesn't always have horrible consequences.
In an ideal world, girls would preserve themselves for their future husbands and not lose their virginity before marriage. However, we all know that this virtually never happens in today's day and age. Most teenage girls yield to the first sexual temptation and end up having lots of sex partners in their lifetimes.
I'd argue that it's better for a young girl to have sex with her brother or father than it is for her to let herself be used as a toilet by random Chads who don't even care about her. Close relatives are supposed to love each other, and in certain circumstances that love can have a sexual component. If I were a father of a son and a daughter, I'd view my son as more worthy of my daughter's affection than some random Chad who doesn't care about her or her family. Fathers should raise their daughters to be selfless, rather than narcissistic selfish whores, and having sex with incel siblings that they do not feel attraction for is a selfless behavior that fathers should oblige their daughters to engage in for their own moral development.
If you have a young sister, and she isn't death-set on remaining a virgin until marriage and avoiding the temptation of premarital sex, it's not wrong to have sex with her. If she is going to have sex anyway, it might as well be with you.
It doesn't make sense to be opposed to practices that offend cultural taboos and feminist/tradcuck moral standards but that have the potential to help at least some incels ascend and avoid a life of loneliness and frustration.
To quote Ovid's Metamorphoses, "Other creatures mate indiscriminately: it is no disgrace for a heifer to have her sire mount her, for his filly to be a stallion’s mate: the goat goes with the flocks he has made, and the birds themselves conceive, by him whose seed conceived them. Happy the creatures who are allowed to do so! Human concern has made malign laws, and what nature allows, jealous duty forbids. Yet they say there are races where mother and son, and father and daughter, pair off, and affection is increased by a double bond. Alas for me, that I did not happen to be born there, and that I am made to suffer by an accident of place!"
Roman Egypt is a well-documented historical case where sibling marriage "becomes the norm rather than merely a common option" for 200 years. Yet there is "no indication of reduced marital fertility, sexual aversion, or increased infant and child mortality", which Walter Scheidel theorizes is because the Egyptian population's genepool was naturally low on harmful recessive genes. Scheidel uses Bittles and Neel and Ralls et al in his followup calculations and gives a putative increase in the infant mortality rate in brother-sister pairings from the normal 52.6% to... 60.2%. Which wasn't, as mentioned before, even observed at all in the Egyptian historical record.
First-degree incest increases the chance of birth defects and other problems, but it depends on the recessive genes you actually have, and the rates are probably far lower than people are led to believe from Soviet-era research that was done on children whose parents were mental patients and had horrible genetics. Today, we have genetic counseling that can determine the risks associated with incestuous pregnancy in individual cases, and abortion is possible if the fetus is defective. I'm not saying people should get their sisters or daughters pregnant, but if it does happen, that doesn't always have horrible consequences.
In an ideal world, girls would preserve themselves for their future husbands and not lose their virginity before marriage. However, we all know that this virtually never happens in today's day and age. Most teenage girls yield to the first sexual temptation and end up having lots of sex partners in their lifetimes.
I'd argue that it's better for a young girl to have sex with her brother or father than it is for her to let herself be used as a toilet by random Chads who don't even care about her. Close relatives are supposed to love each other, and in certain circumstances that love can have a sexual component. If I were a father of a son and a daughter, I'd view my son as more worthy of my daughter's affection than some random Chad who doesn't care about her or her family. Fathers should raise their daughters to be selfless, rather than narcissistic selfish whores, and having sex with incel siblings that they do not feel attraction for is a selfless behavior that fathers should oblige their daughters to engage in for their own moral development.
If you have a young sister, and she isn't death-set on remaining a virgin until marriage and avoiding the temptation of premarital sex, it's not wrong to have sex with her. If she is going to have sex anyway, it might as well be with you.
It doesn't make sense to be opposed to practices that offend cultural taboos and feminist/tradcuck moral standards but that have the potential to help at least some incels ascend and avoid a life of loneliness and frustration.
To quote Ovid's Metamorphoses, "Other creatures mate indiscriminately: it is no disgrace for a heifer to have her sire mount her, for his filly to be a stallion’s mate: the goat goes with the flocks he has made, and the birds themselves conceive, by him whose seed conceived them. Happy the creatures who are allowed to do so! Human concern has made malign laws, and what nature allows, jealous duty forbids. Yet they say there are races where mother and son, and father and daughter, pair off, and affection is increased by a double bond. Alas for me, that I did not happen to be born there, and that I am made to suffer by an accident of place!"