Serious If Incest Didn't Result In Birth Defects & Other Conditions, Men Having "Daughter Harems" Would Have Been The Norm (Inceldom Would Never Have Existed)

[BlkPillPres]

Here's a thought experiment

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the revulsion society has and raises all its children to have, when it comes to incest, is due to knowledge and past experience of what incest results in, inferior genetics

The disgust for incest isn't really for blood related people having sex, when you think about it were all blood related to an extent, and its a norm in some cultures to reproduce as closely as possible as biology allows without risk of defect (2nd or 3rd cousin)

If incest used to result in healthy regular offspring, there would be no such thing as incest taboo, nor would inceldom exist, because every man would just produce daughters, and go on to father more and more children with his daughters, and his sons would also just marry and reproduce with his daughters (their sisters) and so on and so forth, and there wouldn't even be a taboo or disgust for it, because such a thing would never have been socialized into human culture to begin with

Now obviously a man can't will himself to have an equal amount of sons and daughters so every son has a wife, so in those cases sons would marry outside the family, or maybe marry a cousin, etc

To the humans of that alternate universe, such an existence would be their normal and humans that live as we do would be seen as weird, ironically we would rightfully be the weird ones because its us who has the abnormal genetics that is so inferior that inter-familial breeding is impossible

Many royal bloodlines would still exist today and could continue to exist without worry if our genetics worked as described in this scenario

A guy trying to marry and reproduce with another man's daughter, rather than his sister (or within his family), would be a rare yet known occurrence, and he would be seen as the weird one (more like unfortunate), there would probably a specific term within language to define a man born in a family with uneven males and females leaving him the "left over"

In such a world, it would be as if each man's lineage could function and continue on in of itself

 

[kekfuel]

Couldn't this be said by literally anything deemed taboo/sick by society? The common perception of morals and ethics is nothing but a mere social construct. I mean cannibalism is a tradition in some tribes, torture was normalized and accepted by the common folks back in the days and in some middle eastern countries you literally have the right to blow your daughters head off were you to find she has brought shame to your family name.

 

[Sparrow's Song]

Hi CuckTears...

If incest didn't result in fucked up genetics, fathers would have daughters just for making wives and they would save a few daughters for their sons to have as wives as well. In fact, not marrying your sister would anger your father. We would all be Ptolemies.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Couldn't this be said by literally anything deemed taboo/sick by society? The common perception of morals and ethics is nothing but a mere social construct. I mean cannibalism is a tradition in some tribes, torture was normalized and accepted by the common folks back in the days and in some middle eastern countries you literally have the right to blow your daughters head off were you to find she has brought shame to your family name.

Yeah it could be said about a lot of things but you used some bad examples that wouldn't count

1. Cannibalism isn't good for any society no matter the circumstance because it breeds fear and distrust among members of society

Depends on the kind of cannibalism, if its "eat the dead" kind of cannibalism then it would be accepted and become a religious kind of thing, families would consume their dead after funerals, cremation would be seen as blasphemy

2. There is no circumstance where torture is a positive

3. Honor killings are still a loss of life

But in the case of incest, the only actual negative is due to biology, if not for the defects caused by incest, incest would be a norm, the three examples you mentioned could never be a norm because there are reasons for it to be feared no matter what

 

[kekfuel]

Yeah it could be said about a lot of things but you used some bad examples that wouldn't count
2. There is no circumstance where torture is a positive

I could see this being positive in the case of discouraging potential criminals. Wouldn't be a sure-fire way, but it would likely have a probable effect on the total amount of crimes committed.
These examples are just the first ones that popped into my head, I should have brought a more comprehensive set of examples that didn't just have the same outcomes.

 

[Words2_live_bye]

Hi CuckTears...

gotta have sex in order to have a daughter harem
incels would still exist cause the sisters wouldn't fuck the incel brothers

 

[Sparrow's Song]

gotta have sex in order to have a daughter harem
incels would still exist cause the sisters wouldn't fuck the incel brothers

Fathers would force them to or get sacrificed to the agriculture deities...

 

[BlkPillPres]

gotta have sex in order to have a daughter harem
incels would still exist cause the sisters wouldn't fuck the incel brothers

They'd really have no choice, society would have remained a patriarchy because MEN WOULD CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, women only gained control because in order for society to continue, women has to act as independent agents and seek out their own mates to reproduce, which makes a fathers say pointless in the matter, but if women could reproduce within their family without risk, society never gets to the point where its feminized enough that women act as independent agents, in the same way that fathers used to marry off their daughters to specific men, fathers would promise their daughters to specific sons, I'm sure even then there would be some sibling rivalry and Chad bro would cuck Incel bro every once in a while, but he would be punished, like ex-communicated from the family for doing so along with the daughter

Society would never have become the matriarchy it is today, power over sex and reproduction would have remained firmly wrested in the hands of men

 

[Martyr]

i'd still be incel tbh

 

[Emba]

I have actually seen inbred retards - i live in the southern us - so i can confirm incest theory is real. And those inbreds also did incest too! (They had no choice!)

Such is life.

Çest la vie.

 

[Deleted member 19236]

Such is life.

Çest la vie.

 

[Eternal Observer]

There would definetely still be incels, the change is only circumstantial. One would have to still be successful at initial sexual reproduction in order to go on to mate with their offspring. The term 'incel', as redundantly contradictory as it is, implies sexual failure. We'd still be here, besides a few betabuxxes and chad would be banging his daughters and other guy's daughters.

 

[IncelKing]

Society gives the false impression that particular actions just happen to be "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" for no reason at all other than by nature, in order to assign "objectivity" to morality. Truth is, the perception of "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" comes from the risk/reward, costs/benefits associated with each action.

Think of homosexuality for example, during a time when the transmission of AIDS was rampant due to homosexual acts, there was a large stigma towards homosexuality and it was seen as taboo ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS HARMFUL.

Once a cure for AIDS was developed, the perception of homosexuality changed because it was no longer harmful and it started to become more widely accepted and normalised. Those in support of faggotry would make the argument that "homosexuality DOESNT HARM YOU in any way," thereby revealing the fact that their views towards homosexuality are affected by the potential harm or lack of harm associated with the act, rather than the act being naturally "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong.

But what confuses me is that the same principle isn't applied to incest.

Historically, Incest was stigmatized and considered taboo because of the genetic abnormalities which lead to deformities/developmental disorders caused in offspring who are the product of consanguine relationships (mostly immediate family- brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter etc.)

But sex between closely related participants resulting in a physically and/or intellectually abnormal child can be prevented by contraception or even abortion, so the "harmful" aspect of incest is removed similiar to the "harmful" aspect of homosexuality being eliminated, yet homosexuality is accepted whereas incest is not.

Do normies not see the logical flaw in supporting homosexuality "because it's not harmful", whilst at the same time arguing that incest is objectively wrong (even though it's no longer harmful either?)

 

[BlkPillPres]

There would definetely still be incels, the change is only circumstantial. One would have to still be successful at initial sexual reproduction in order to go on to mate with their offspring. The term 'incel', as redundantly contradictory as it is, implies sexual failure. We'd still be here, besides a few betabuxxes and chad would be banging his daughters and other guy's daughters.

Society would have remained a strong patriarchy, of course it would still happen, but it would be rare, and deterred by fear of social ostracization and maybe worse

Society gives the false impression that particular actions just happen to be "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" for no reason at all other than by nature, in order to assign "objectivity" to morality. Truth is, the perception of "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" comes from the risk/reward, costs/benefits associated with each action.

Think of homosexuality for example, during a time when the transmission of AIDS was rampant due to homosexual acts, there was a large stigma towards homosexuality and it was seen as taboo ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS HARMFUL.

Once a cure for AIDS was developed, the perception of homosexuality changed because it was no longer harmful and it started to become more widely accepted and normalised. Those in support of faggotry would make the argument that "homosexuality DOESNT HARM YOU in any way," thereby revealing the fact that their views towards homosexuality are affected by the potential harm or lack of harm associated with the act, rather than the act being naturally "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong.

But what confuses me is that the same principle isn't applied to incest.

Historically, Incest was stigmatized and considered taboo because of the genetic abnormalities which lead to deformities/developmental disorders caused in offspring who are the product of consanguine relationships (mostly immediate family- brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter etc.)

But sex between closely related participants resulting in a physically and/or intellectually abnormal child can be prevented by contraception or even abortion, so the "harmful" aspect of incest is removed similiar to the "harmful" aspect of homosexuality being eliminated, yet homosexuality is accepted whereas incest is not.

Do normies not see the logical flaw in supporting homosexuality "because it's not harmful", whilst at the same time arguing that incest is objectively wrong (even though it's no longer harmful either?)

Pregnancy is always a possibility though so the fear is always there, whereas aids can also be spread and attained by heterosexuals

On another note I think society's real hate for incest comes from the "daughter guarding" that men do, men do this even in this world where daughters are not considered mates, so imagine how strongly men would do this when said daughter is considered a future wife, society doesn't want men holding dominance or control over sexual resources

 

[The Abyss]

People would be more relatable to each other in the long run you'd think if it was so, well in terms of sticking together but you'd either need to remove womens rights or alter their brains when it comes to their perception of attraction.

Society gives the false impression that particular actions just happen to be "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" for no reason at all other than by nature, in order to assign "objectivity" to morality. Truth is, the perception of "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" comes from the risk/reward, costs/benefits associated with each action.

Think of homosexuality for example, during a time when the transmission of AIDS was rampant due to homosexual acts, there was a large stigma towards homosexuality and it was seen as taboo ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS HARMFUL.

Once a cure for AIDS was developed, the perception of homosexuality changed because it was no longer harmful and it started to become more widely accepted and normalised. Those in support of faggotry would make the argument that "homosexuality DOESNT HARM YOU in any way," thereby revealing the fact that their views towards homosexuality are affected by the potential harm or lack of harm associated with the act, rather than the act being naturally "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong.

But what confuses me is that the same principle isn't applied to incest.

Historically, Incest was stigmatized and considered taboo because of the genetic abnormalities which lead to deformities/developmental disorders caused in offspring who are the product of consanguine relationships (mostly immediate family- brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter etc.)

But sex between closely related participants resulting in a physically and/or intellectually abnormal child can be prevented by contraception or even abortion, so the "harmful" aspect of incest is removed similiar to the "harmful" aspect of homosexuality being eliminated, yet homosexuality is accepted whereas incest is not.

Do normies not see the logical flaw in supporting homosexuality "because it's not harmful", whilst at the same time arguing that incest is objectively wrong (even though it's no longer harmful either?)

The push for homosexuality & trans shit is a page out of a eugenics manual.

 

[IncelKing]

whereas aids can also be spread and attained by heterosexuals

Well physically/intellectually abnormal children can also be born from non-incestuous relationships so the argument is null and void.

On another note I think society's real hate for incest comes from the "daughter guarding" that men do, men do this even in this world where daughters are not considered mates, so imagine how strongly men would do this when said daughter is considered a future wife, society doesn't want men holding dominance or control over sexual resources

We need to realise that society is set up in such a way that majority of men (excluding chad) need to compete for economic resources in order to acquire sexual resources. When there is fierce competition for resources(economic and sexual), productivity and economic functionality of a nation increases rapidly which benefits the elites of society at the top of the hierarchy disproportionately in comparison to the majority of people at the bottom of the hierarchy, who reap little to no benefits.

If men were able to simply marry their own blood relative, there would be less incentive to be a productive member of society and contribute more than the bare minimum required to survive, so the competition for resources would decrease which would result in less $$$ for the elites. The elites have designed this system in such a way that ultimately, they are the ones who come out on top.

 

[Eternal Observer]

Society would have remained a strong patriarchy, of course it would still happen, but it would be rare, and deterred by fear of social ostracization and maybe worse

Idk man, it sounds like the power of sexual selection just gets handed to sexually successful men instead of women in this instance. Men who still may not want bad genetics in their families. The only general solution to inceldom is globally legalized prostitution.

 

[PPEcel]

This is pretty fucked up.

I'm sure that most of us just aren't attracted to our relatives, cultural taboo or not. There's a substantial body of evidence in favor of the Westermarck effect.

 

[Akhnai]

Westermarck effect

Only applies to relatives that live with us during the formative years of our childhod.
Lots of cases where siblings separated during their childhood fuck each other

 

[PPEcel]

Only applies to relatives that live with us during the formative years of our childhod.
Lots of cases where siblings separated during their childhood fuck each other

That is true.

Most of us stick with our siblings though

 

[jerrycan dan]

Okay, this is epic.

 

[Deleted member 4159]

Incest was very common in the past. Were the genetic defects back then really that bad? To me, negative side effects from inceldom seems like a modern phenomenon.

 

[Neggr]

well ur right

 

[BlkPillPres]

The only general solution to inceldom is globally legalized prostitution.

True

I'm sure that most of us just aren't attracted to our relatives, cultural taboo or not

No its because of cultural taboo, if you were raised to see being attracted to your sister as a normal thing, you would be attracted to your sister without a feeling of shame or disgust, why do you think cannibals in small tribes can eat other humans without thinking its "fucked up", its because to them its normal

 

[kampman]

If men were able to simply marry their own blood relative, there would be less incentive to be a productive member of society and contribute more than the bare minimum required to survive, so the competition for resources would decrease which would result in less $$$ for the elites.

On the other hand, this scenario would result in much more sexually satisfied males, and I believe sexual satisfaction can also be a motivation to be a productive member of society (the society that I work for enables me to have a sexually fulfilling and loving relationship, so I will have nothing against it, I may even be willing to make sacrifices for it).

I completely agree with OP. If children born with genetic defects were not a possible result of incest, almost everyone would be doing it. It would be much safer and easier to experience sex and romantic love with a close relative with whom you already have a special bond. I think it would result in more stable families, less cheating and more fulfilling sex.

 

[Indari]

normies pretend that it's morality rather cultural pressure and biology that makes them against. always virtue signaling
Incels: 1, Bluepillers: 10

 

[Homoculus]

Here's a thought experiment

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the revulsion society has and raises all its children to have, when it comes to incest, is due to knowledge and past experience of what incest results in, inferior genetics

The disgust for incest isn't really for blood related people having sex, when you think about it were all blood related to an extent, and its a norm in some cultures to reproduce as closely as possible as biology allows without risk of defect (2nd or 3rd cousin)

If incest used to result in healthy regular offspring, there would be no such thing as incest taboo, nor would inceldom exist, because every man would just produce daughters, and go on to father more and more children with his daughters, and his sons would also just marry and reproduce with his daughters (their sisters) and so on and so forth, and there wouldn't even be a taboo or disgust for it, because such a thing would never have been socialized into human culture to begin with

Now obviously a man can't will himself to have an equal amount of sons and daughters so every son has a wife, so in those cases sons would marry outside the family, or maybe marry a cousin, etc

To the humans of that alternate universe, such an existence would be their normal and humans that live as we do would be seen as weird, ironically we would rightfully be the weird ones because its us who has the abnormal genetics that is so inferior that inter-familial breeding is impossible

Many royal bloodlines would still exist today and could continue to exist without worry if our genetics worked as described in this scenario

A guy trying to marry and reproduce with another man's daughter, rather than his sister (or within his family), would be a rare yet known occurrence, and he would be seen as the weird one (more like unfortunate), there would probably a specific term within language to define a man born in a family with uneven males and females leaving him the "left over"

In such a world, it would be as if each man's lineage could function and continue on in of itself

Incestuous relationships are often not the source of an inheritable genetic deficiency, but they do make a closed group within a society especially vulnerable to one.
The mutation that introduced hemophilia into the European royal houses was idiomatic (without an identifiable cause) and affected one person. It spread only because that person was born into a group that valued close, entwined and multi-generational blood relationships over everything else. If it had occurred in a normal person, it likely would have disappeared in a few generations, maybe without being detected.

 

[Deleted member 21504]

Or we could live without smartphones and travel, and we'd almost have the shit locked down.

 

[Deleted member 21883]

Oh yeh, lets breed a crop of retarded people who bleed to death internally from falling off a bicycle. Truly, that would fix our problems. /s

 

[Hate_my_life]

/s

 

[unsettling]

Oh yeh, lets breed a crop of retarded people who bleed to death internally from falling off a bicycle. Truly, that would fix our problems. /s

reddit_user_2345

 

[Deleted member 21883]

Or we could just go back to equal-distribution monogamy that actually has a proven track record of working over the long term, assuming that the culture doesn't become decadent or lunatic enough to allow polygamy.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Oh yeh, lets breed a crop of retarded people who bleed to death internally from falling off a bicycle. Truly, that would fix our problems. /s

Are you stupid or can't you read, within the hypothetical, incest doesn't result in defects

Reproducing with a family member would function the same as reproducing with a non-family member