More incest drama in /r/gaybros: 'Out of curiosity, why are "links or promotion of incest" disallowed?' ...'Editorial privledge. We don't endorse incest, pedophilia or other sexual taboos.' (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
46 ups - 0 downs = 46 votes
135 comments submitted at 16:32:46 on Dec 1, 2014 by nutriton
/r/subredditdramadrama incoming in 3, 2, 1.
GAY TWINCEST DRAMA LETS DO THIS SHIT
By our powers combined, we are, Captain DudeBro!
^ Ever so slightly NSFW.
That's not "Ever so slightly". (ಠ_ಠ)
What sort of prudes are you working with?
BEGIN THE DOCKING PROCEDURE (also NSFW, but less so)
See now THAT is a good argument against circumcision. Because no one deserves to have their right to snoodle removed.
(drama intensifies)
>snoodle
TIL
Also known as "docking".
I just saw a Key and Peele sketch about this. President Obama and his anger translator Luthor. They mentioned plopping, and at the end of the sketch said look it up
Ow shit ow fuck what the hell
Ahem
I feel like Reddit is one of the few places that can be too "sex positive."
I for one am kind of embarrassed. Years of arguing with conservatives that "the slippery slope" was a myth and a fallacy, a bad reason to withhold rights from gay people.... aaaaaaaand right here there's people arguing "if those icky gays can marry I should be able to fuck my sister and dog".
Ok, sorry, you guys were right.
What's wrong with that though? If they're both consenting to the sex, why does it matter? It's the same argument used by those advocating for homosexuality. It doesn't harm others and doesn't harm the participants so there's no reason to ban it.
So which are you defending here, banging siblings or banging animals?
Well......the obvious reason is that an animal, by law, can't consent. So technically it'd be a rape. And also because fucking an animal that doesn't know any better is pretty much as bad as fucking a small child, or a baby, which in my opinion should get you life in prison.
I think it's obvious he/she is talking about incest, not bestiality.
Well if they are, then my bad. It's just that the wording is so ambiguous I can't tell.
Gotta love when SRD starts defending incest . It shows how morally shallow and hypocritical most folks here are.
Christ, why is it so hard for people to understand why incest is so bad. It's an inherently flawed and lopsided power dynamic, which calls consent into question, and it's very difficult to get out of due to family ties, yet again calling consent into question.
I mean I'll give them some credit here, "twins" is a new spin on it which changes the power dynamic aspects, but similar problems exist.
I mean...look, if its between 2 consenting adults
I may still think its gross, but at the end of the day it'd be their decision to respect.
The problem there is consent. The argument is that it's pretty much impossible for an incestuois relationship to maintain consent.
I'm not sure I understand that point; I don't see any intrinsic problems with consent. It they are both grown up adults, why can't they be grown up consensual adults? I know incest is taboo, and I know that was biologically useful and I do not condone people inbreeding, but on the other hand, I'm thinking live and let live where other people's lives and decisions are concerned.
The argument I've heard (and makes sense) is a parent can groom a child for when they turn 18 or the inherent power difference between parent and child can be used to get consent that may not be freely given. That's a real concern if one party is essentially abusing the other into "consent".
If there's no grooming nor power imbalance then sure. But since it's really hard to tell there's a difference then the government does have an interest in preventing it.
There was a really squicky thread a couple years ago about a guy who had sex with him mom. In the AMA he started to reveal that his mom had actually groomed him from an extremely young age- and the poor guy refused to listen to anyone who tried to tell him this was predatory behavior. It was really fucking messed up. I have relatives who were victims to incest and I really don't like seeing it defended so adamantly.
Yeah and that's a huge concern. I mean usually I want to say consensual is all that matters. But it's so easy to get by consent when you are an authority figure.
It's a lot more complicated than a lot of people want to admit.
The broken arms guy or a different one?
I think a different one, I don't remember any mention of broken arms
Really? It gets brought up all the time.
Because incestuous relationships don't start between consenting adults. They generally start between two kids or between an adult and a child. The two kids is a whole big bad can of worms and the adult and child is obviously bad.
I guess if you had two siblings who became adults and then decided to start banging you'd have a point but I don't think incest ever develops that way.
If it's not between an adult and a child like with twins, is it different from two childhood sweethearts developing a relationship? If it's because they spend so much time under the same roof, would it be just as bad if it were two unrelated members of a multifamily household? These sorts of power dynamics don't really depend on being related, and it's probably unfair to say that no two related adults have ever started an incestuous relationship without having one when they were younger.
I generally disapprove of incest, but I wish my disapproval had an internally consistent basis and this line of reasoning seems like it's missing something.
>is it different from two childhood sweethearts developing a relationship?
It's two kids fucking and we generally don't promote that because decision making isn't great at young ages and consent is really hard for us to determine.
On top of that, like /u/Hellkyte mentioned, because they're family it makes it very difficult to withdraw from that relationship.
You can disapprove of incest with very consistent logic. Consent and power are difficult enough to determine that we frown upon those relationships. We can imagine these theoretical healthy incestuous relationships, but you'll never find one in the real world.
>we generally don't promote that
Fair point, but while it's not promoted, it's not disapproved of on the level of incest, especially since statutory rape laws often have Romeo and Juliet exceptions. Even still, relationships between kids can have all sorts of weird power dynamics and pressures that, while they do muddy consent, aren't unique to incest.
>We can imagine these theoretical healthy incestuous relationships, but you'll never find one in the real world
I know you're probably being intentionally hyperbolic with the use of "never", but I'm still not convinced that incest is inherently and universally unhealthy. Sure, in the great majority of cases, but not so fundamentally that it's impossible for it to be on the level now and again, especially not without calling into question the integrity of any relationship with some significant power imbalance, which is not really uncommon.
Again, I can't believe I'm offering a defense for incest on an internet message board with no personal stake in the issue, but the arguments I'm seeing against it haven't yet overcome my open-mindedness. I do think /r/gaybros is in the right for officially disapproving discussions of underage twincest. It's not the place for it and it's really going to attract a) creeps and b) drama.
>I know you're probably being intentionally hyperbolic with the use of "never", but I'm still not convinced that incest is inherently and universally unhealthy.
But we don't really need for it to be inherently or universally unhealthy for us to disapprove of it or even make it illegal. If 9 out of 10 times it's bad, we can say it's no bueno and move on.
But if the basis is the power imbalance, should we not base the law on that rather than the fact that they're related? Again, I can see that incest should be discouraged for these reasons, but is it right to look down on an incestuous relationship that did turn out fine and healthy, if it's the 1 out of 10 as you say?
More Comments - Click Here
Why is it necessarily two kids fucking? It could develop like any other relationship between childhood sweethearts.
So you're just not even reading my comment and replying randomly? I like literally just explained why it's not two childhood sweethearts.
No, you falsely equated an incestuous relationship with two kids fucking. There's no reason to believe it couldn't be a non-sexual relationship until they reach the age of consent, any more than with unrelated childhood sweethearts.
More Comments - Click Here
>We can imagine these theoretical healthy incestuous relationships, but you'll never find one in the real world.
Solid evidence. It's good to hear that you can decide that for the people like in the OP who seem to be perfectly happy.
Gaybros is notorious for posting fanfic erotica. OP is fake dude.
Any relationship where there's an age gap (uncles/ aunts and their nieces/ nephews, parents/ children, even the vast majority of siblings) will have a power imbalance weighted towards the older party because of the duty of care that person had towards that the younger one growing up. To avoid the very, very real risks of grooming occurring while the person's younger and more vulnerable to manipulate them into doing what the other party wants when they're older, I would much rather incest laws stayed as they are.
One of the few incestuous relationships that could be somewhat exempt from that are gay and infertile twins. I don't know how the law works well enough to say whether relaxing laws on that would set a precedent for legalizing other forms of incest; if there's any risk that it would, I wouldn't be willing to take it.
What about cousins with very limited interactions while children?
Whether it's ethically a problem would depend on age and a whole host of other factors. Two 18 year old cousins who've never met and who don't have a complex, potentially damaging family dynamic having sex doesn't worry me particularly, provided one or both is/are sterile or they're gay.
Legally though, as I said above though, I don't support legalizing it if it puts vulnerable people at significant risk.
Wouldn't it be just as impossible for a husband and wife relationship to maintain consent?
Listen, I get that the whole consent thing gets very murky when discussing stuff like this, but to say that incest is inherently bad because consent can't be maintained is a really gross generalization.
If a 25 year old woman is in her right mind, and wants to have sex with her 50 year old father, and they're both in their right minds when they're doing it, and they don't intend to procreate (another topic entirely) then there's just no moral ground to stand on in saying that it's wrong.
I'm loathe to talk about pedophilia here, but it's the same kind of thing. There are 12 year old kids who are perfectly capable of having sex with older people, and older people who are capable of doing that without harming or taking advantage of the child. The difference here is that you can't know if that's true, so a blanket "it's always wrong" thing works, even though there are individuals cases when it's not wrong.
The difference here is between minors and adults. Children are easily coerced, but adults are able to make these decisions intelligently.
You're doing to incest what you'd do to pedophilia, only it works with pedophilia but not incest. There are coercive elements of incest that often make it wrong, and to prevent that from happening, you're trying to say all of it's wrong, all the time, the same way you would pedophilia.
> a 25 year old woman is in her right mind, and wants to have sex with her 50 year old father, and they're both in their right minds
That's a lot of assumptions to make. Hell there are way many non related 25/50 year old couples where you know that it's predatory and creepy and abusive
What am I assuming, exactly? I'm saying if that's true, then there's nothing necessarily coercive or immoral about it.
My point is that incest, while seemingly distasteful (I'm sure not a fan of it, but I'm not sure I can justify my distaste) is not inherently immoral with adults, and to say that incest is by its very nature coercive just isn't true.
There are many occasions in which the coercive nature of familial relationships is exploited, and that is often the case with incest. But is not incest that is inherently problematic; it's a bad person exploiting another person for sex.
You know your point on husband/wife is actually pretty good. My only counter would be that they have seperate families upstream (their mothers and fathers). Gonna have to think about that some.
That sort of thinking is part of the 2nd wave feminism "all sex is rape of women" argument, I believe. The idea here is that the culturally accepted power dynamic between men and women is such that women can't truly consent to sex for reasons similar, if not identical, to your concerns about incest.
That's not something I believe personally, though. There certainly can be coercive elements to anything like that, of course.
In cases like father/daughter mother/son whatever you're totally right. But with things like twins or siblings who are close together in age? I mean I think it's disgusting as well, but if they're happy it's their business I suppose. As long as they don't have kids I don't mind really, I just won't go socializing with them.
I don't see a lopsided power dynamic between two adult brothers, and I think in that case we have to respect the consent of two grown men, unless there are obvious signs of duress. All kinds of relationships have potential to get messy, but that's no grounds to legislate against them, or make rules against even discussing them positively. All this feels like rationalising a gut distaste.
Yeah, I mean... Its disgusting, but if everything was illegal based on that it would be a sad world.
Upvote for saying that legislation based on taste is a bad idea.
Just to add context here as to what I've actually heard about in the past, the most common thing you see from mainstream or large-scale studios is the "twins" angle - for example, Milo and Elijah Peters, or the Visconti triplets.
I don't think I've seen a large studio advertise anything else. Plenty of dad/son roleplay in films (most frequently as a stepfather), but I've never heard of a studio bill an actually related duo outside of twins.
>but similar problems exist
such as.....?
Just admit you think it's gross. That's literally the only reason to ban it, especially between homosexuals.
One of the biggest problem is in ending the relationship when one partner wants to end it and the other doesn't. Since you share immediate family you don't have a social safety net of family and you can be pressured to stay in a relationship that you otherwise wouldn't. It creates a deep sense of isolation and ultimately pushes people to stay in said relationships far longer than they should because the alternative is so rough.
People already have that problem anyways even without sex, you can't easily "break up" with your your family, so after you argue you are forced to still stay with them.
People "break up" from relationships, not from having sex. Romantic couples just happen to be the most typical examples of it, and with them, th end of sex signifies the official breaking up. But it's not the sex that makes them breaking up, it's the relationship. Caste couples are also breaking up with each other. Families are in a relationship with each other whether or not they are having sex.
Not that I want to come across as endorsing total postmodernism as any kind of ideal, but this treatment does get a little more difficult when start considering that cousin pairings (particularly with regard to cross-cousins) are a historical norm in many cultures, and are typically encouraged by both sides of the family in those cultures, even in situations where they aren't necessarily forced. As a result, I can't help but think at least some of the appeal of the justification here is then building upon a more Western tradition of individualism.
So that's not at all to say that you're wrong, but rather that I'm deliberately wary of the very natural appeal of the justification you're providing.
So the potential for a messy break-up is the only reason to ban it?
I think it is a uniquely messy breakup that is potentially bad enough that there are reasons to ban it. To draw a (poor) analogy think of it like workplace romances but exponentially worse.
So what about two siblings of similar age?
SnapShots: 1, 2
^^Anyone ^^know ^^an ^^alternative ^^to ^^Readability? ^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^PM!
Oh, great. It's the pro-bestiality argument again, only with relatives instead of animals this time. I see the "besides people thinking it's 'icky,' what's actually wrong with it?" argument is already up and about and stretching its legs.
Edit: Also, good for you, /u/knickerblocker, for standing firm on this one. Stick to your guns, man!
^([not sarcasm; I'm actually cheering for him])
Edit 2: Sigh. Alright, incest & bestiality defenders, let's get this over with.
Oh great. I see the "making dismissive meta comments instead of justifying your opinions" argument is already up and about.
I don't think brother-fucking is an excellent life choice, but people get so weird about this stuff.
Such snark. Much edgy.
I'm dismissive of it because I'm tired of having the same boring argument. Refer to previous threads on this charming subject for my (and many others') justifications for our opinions. It's a very odd experience to have people demand an explanation for my radical (and apparently offensive) "don't have sex with siblings or animals" stance. It's truly astonishing what kind of shit people will argue just for the sake of the argument.
There's some sick, desperate compulsion in these people to trick or goad the "don't have sex with siblings or animals" crowd into admitting they think "it's just icky," hoping that somehow that will "vindicate" sexing up their siblings or pets. Hint: it doesn't, and you have issues requiring professional attention if you can't comprehend why.
You can keep playing devil's advocate, but bear in mind what you're arguing on behalf of when you do it.
If you don't want to discuss something, then don't. I'll quit as well. I'm aware your opinions are in the majority in society.
One important note: the abusive cases (which comprise a large number of real-world cases) should still be prosecuted, of course. The laws against incest should be rephrased to make non-abusive non-underage situations without inbreeding legal. Edited for clarity.
> If you don't want to discuss something, then don't.
Oh, no, you're mistaken. I'm perfectly happy and willing to openly ridicule it and those who practice (or defend) it, including the wise-ass "devil's advocate" folks who continually put themselves in the awkward position of defending incest or bestiality because of their insatiable urge to argue.
It's those insufferable "discussions" I'm not keen to join again. They invariably devolve into arguing about the definition of consent (and whether the victim(s) of the act are afforded the privilege of being protected by law against sex acts they don't consent to), a constant badgering to "just admit you think it's gross," and sometimes even a citation from an alleged academic research paper where a single passage, when taken out of context, appears to give some kinda-sorta support to some nitpicked point the whatever-fucker is trying to make.
The citations are fun -- just imagine someone actually digging through scholar.google.com or a library/academic search engine looking for pro-pedophilia, pro-incest or pro-bestiality arguments. Explain that one to the research desk.
Haha, someone showed you the Miletski book?
Indeed.
>I see the "besides people thinking it's 'icky,' what's actually wrong with it?" argument is already up and about and stretching its legs.
Instead of whining about people saying it, why not actually respond and tell people what is wrong with it. The only real argument I've heard against incest is the one involving power dynamics, but there is no guarantee that incestual relationships have to involve this. Granted I'm very of Leary of parent-child relationships because of the amount of influence a parent has over a child, but cousins and siblings maybe not so much.
Want to really know? Here you go:
I was never ever, really my brother's favorite, we never got along well, but i always cared for my older brother, and we both were attracted to men.... Let's just say alot of things happened, Ill elaborate later if people are actually interested, all i can say is, it has hurt our relationship, we have gotten sexual, and now, it feels like we are forcing ourselves to be family. if you guys are interested ill tell you everything that happened, it is a bit sexy but also tragic, and i do regret what happened. my advice: be careful, it stings to see my brother now, and feel so far, even when we are so close together."
"Yah it's the cold hard truth when it comes to incest, hot as hell when your in the heat of the moment, followed by a lifetime of awkwardness and regret. Contrary to this sub nearly all incest happens at young ages when you're curious about sex but don't necessarily understand the implications of what you're doing."
"Is it abuse if I like it?"
"On one such occasion, early into the summer, Tony approached me. He asked me if I knew what sex was. I was only nine, and didn't know much at all about the subject, aside from a crude joke I'd overhear here and there. He said that he would show me, and I was all for it. [...] It hurt. I screamed and begged for him to get off. I'm not trying to titillate anyone here, but this is what happened. He was stronger than me, and I couldn't stop him. And I think about it all the time and I almost want to vomit with disgust. [...] When he was done, he told me not to tell anyone or he would hurt me. Tony was stronger than me and he would let me know at every opportunity, so at nine years old I held a healthy amount of fear towards him. But, aside from that, I was ashamed. My pride, even at that age, would not allow me to tell on him."
I clicked on a total of four posts to get all of that information. That's all I needed. Stories like this are plastered all over subs of that ilk. If you still think incest is defensible in any way, shape or form you're fucking delusional. You see, people seem to think that incest works the same way that it does in porn: it does not. Real people have real emotions and consent is virtually impossible to assure or to otherwise protect when it comes to incestuous family relationships. What if you're raped? Can a family member be compelled to testify against another? Can you guarantee that there won't be a cover-up once people find out? Can you seriously tell me that there is no imbalance of power between two brothers, even if one is only slightly older by a few years?
I cannot believe that I need to justify this. I literally need to go clean my browser history and take a shower.
I'm sorry I'm causing you aggravation today man. I just thought the whole topic in general was funny. /r/gaybros has a long and weird history with this kind of stuff...
*I've already reported someone for popcorn pissing, and they'll probably be banned.
All my point was, is that if people have a problem with Incest or bestiality then they need to actually say why they think its wrong, you can't just come in and state that 'It's wrong and any discussion is morally reprehensible!' and then just leave it at that. Even with the most morally reprehensible things.
That said, I do agree with what you just posted, it made me rethink my position.
>All my point was, is that if people have a problem with Incest or bestiality then they need to actually say why they think its wrong, you can't just come in and state that 'It's wrong and any discussion is morally reprehensible!' and then just leave it at that.
That's because its so generally understood as wrong that I didn't think I'd need to actually go dive for it. I did. Here you are.
I just want to thank you. These dismissive and supportive comments are the reason my grandmother and her daughter never sought help from the people who took advantage of them, and they had very short lives.
That's extremely kind of you. I'm very sorry they had to endure that.
> I see the "besides people thinking it's 'icky,' what's actually wrong with it?" argument is already up and about and stretching its legs.
We could say that about any kind of sexual deviancy.
>Throwaway for obvious reasons! not everyone does, but I do. my bro and i have been at it more nights than not ever since we were 12-13~ and we still do it now. If it was legal i would even marry him but oh well.
Sounds like something from a porn video. But could it be, someone is making thins up on reddit?
Its sad to see gay people perform all the same old mental gymnastics to equate finding something icky with finding it morally wrong. The exact same reason homosexuality was/is illegal.
or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't have sex with family particularly family that close in relations. What happens if that relationship ends poorly?
Then it does? It's their life, their choice. They're two consenting, seemingly stable adults in a relationship that harms no one. I'm not asking for it to be legalised because it's the slipperiest 90 degree slope there is, but where is the harm if they keep it private?
See comment here: http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/2ny9ex/moreincestdramainrgaybrosoutof_curiosity/cmi503t
Edit: I know it is kinda lazy, but the reason i am linking you to another thread is because you pretty much asked the same question.
I'm not saying its a wise move, I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal, and it certainly shouldn't be illegal to speak positively about. If the relationships end poorly then the consenting adults involved have to be grown up and deal with it. Its none of your business.
You throw out "consenting adults" like it's a sure thing. If these are 2 children, like ages ~12? Yeah, not consenting adults. Or what about power dynamics? One twin coerces another during childhood?
We have laws covering children having sex regardless of their relatedness. You can't nanny every relationship between adults based on this fear that one party is subtly coercing the other, or has been playing some psychological long game. It undermines our notion of personal responsibility. It starts to sound like exactly the same tenuous rationalisations used by homophobes.
> It starts to sound like exactly the same tenuous rationalisations used by homophobes.
No, no it does not. But whatever, I have no stake in this. You want to have a relationship with your bro, go ahead.
Childish. And I maintain that it does so! Also, you seemed to have changed your tune, I thought your position was I shouldn't be allowed to even if I wanted to?
I was merely excusing myself from a debate that i don't care to have with someone on the internet. But fine, i'll take the bait. As a bisexual, I find it greatly insulting that you feel having same sex relations is the same as familial relations. You are willfully ignoring everything that comes with being siblings and are just seeing 2 people who are blank slates that happen to share blood. This ignores their upbringing, their relationship dynamic with each other and other family members, and, if they are not same sex siblings, genetic disorders that can be passed to children should a pregnancy occur.
I think it is important for the gay community to maintain a firm distance from things like incest, ephebophilia (Reddit's favorite), and zoophilia because it would just fuel the flames over the whole "slippery slope" fallacy that many believe.
The fact that you find it insulting is the problem. By all means excuse yourself.
childish.
So far your excuses haven't impressed anyone either.
More Comments - Click Here
> It starts to sound like exactly the same tenuous rationalisations used by homophobes.
No. No, you will not lump my sexual orientation with whatever bullshit you're trying to sell. I find it utterly outrageous that you could possibly equate a defense incest with a defense of gay rights. These are not even vaguely the same thing and I completely resent your inference that it does. Incest virtually requires a lack of informed consent.
Incest, pedophilia and bestiality defenders pull this shit every single time the topic comes up. They want to piggyback the legitimate struggles and successes of the gay rights movement to defend their own "habits."
Don't expect the word "consent" to mean too much to them, either. Zoophiles have actually argued that it is impossible to rape an animal because the animal is incapable of understanding (or giving) consent. That's the kind of broken thinking you're working with here. It appears the incest crowd is similarly unimpressed with the concept.
Paedophilia and bestiality are wrong because the child or animal is unable to consent. I'm confused as to why you think a brother or sister can't?
> I'm confused as to why you think a brother or sister can't?
Yes, we know.
Explanations abound in this thread. You need only read them to understand. Or not. Your choice, really. Guess it just depends on how good she looks in her pajamas tonight, really.
And every one of them falls apart, unless you apply some other qualifier. Such as one or both partners being under the age of consent, or one partner being abusive. Its abuse of power that is wrong, not incest.
Maybe statistically most all incestuous relationships are abusive, although nobody here has given any figures. But I don't know how you can denounce the ones that expressly aren't. After all, this drama started with a guy confessing that his incestuous relationship is going swimmingly.
Anyway, I'm not sticking around for personal jibes. Goodnight fella.
More Comments - Click Here
For the uninitiated
Ah, perfect example! That's the other common argument that comes up when someone defends zoophilia: we cage and kill animals, so fucking them must be okay, too, right? The "two wrongs make a right" argument.
It's a close relative of the "if you're okay with killing animals to eat their meat, you must also be okay with having sex with them!" argument.
All time comedy classics.
Your disgust at being put in the same boat as an incestuous couple says it all. I'm gay, the thought of incest does not sit well in my stomach but I put that aside to decide what I think is right and wrong. I'm selling the opinion that you should do the same.
I don't understand why you think incest requires a lack of informed consent, you've just made that up out of thin air. Using 'virtually as a weasel word. I can only guess maybe you're working from the circular reasoning that nobody informed enough would want to be in an incestuous relationship, so therefore anyone in one mustn't have consented. Just stop nannying adults and let them live their own lives.
>I don't understand why you think incest requires a lack of informed consent
Well, the law for one. Not enough for you? Here you are:
"Yah it's the cold hard truth when it comes to incest, hot as hell when your in the heat of the moment, followed by a lifetime of awkwardness and regret. Contrary to this sub nearly all incest happens at young ages when you're curious about sex but don't necessarily understand the implications of what you're doing."
"It hurt. I screamed and begged for him to get off. I'm not trying to titillate anyone here, but this is what happened. [...] When he was done, he told me not to tell anyone or he would hurt me. Tony was stronger than me and he would let me know at every opportunity, so at nine years old I held a healthy amount of fear towards him. But, aside from that, I was ashamed. My pride, even at that age, would not allow me to tell on him.
"The first time I had sex with my dad, I was 17 years old. First, some background. He and I had a falling out after my "coming out" when I was 16. He and my mom were divorced and my mom is a raging alcoholic, so he had custody. [...] After about 3 months, things got violent. He hit me and left a shiner. [...] The look in his eyes was one of a deep love I had only seen once before in my life, when he looked at my mother before she got bad. That day, we made love twice more. That next morning, before I went to school, we had an encore."
"My dad was passed out drunk one night, and I gave him a handjob. Never went further than that, though. Unfortunately."
None of this sounds like informed consent. It sounds like people rationalizing sexual abuse by family members and then developing Stockholm Syndrome by coming back for more. Furthermore, virtually all incest seems to be used as a form of apologia for pedophilia. I cannot understand how in God's name you could rationally accept this.
Incest does not work like it does in porn, which is what you seem to be implying. "Oh, they're informed adults," you say, "wouldn't a relationship between two brothers of similar ages be like a childhood romance?" No, it wouldn't. Any relationship between a person in a situation of power and someone subordinate automatically triggers questions of consent: this is why we do not allow relationships between executives and employees or teachers and students. In an incestuous context, this can only end badly at which point the law must stand. What if one brother rapes or coerces another brother? When precisely does fraternal rape come into play? Can a mother be coerced to testify against her own child for raping another? Likewise, can she be obligated? There is no test for such a thing because all of these situations are the same. They are uniformly bad without exception.
In regards to your claim that it could be a childhood romance, the same burden of force applies. When I was 13, my slightly older cousin was 16 and appeared mightily older and wiser than me. At 17, he appeared utterly worldly. We now laugh at such a small age difference but at the time these things are remarkably substantiative.
You know, I was going to conclude my thought in my last paragraph but I realized that I can't actually argue with you any further. I'm afraid that I've lost my stomach for reading about sexual abuse and incest.
The examples you cherry picked are abusive because they are abusive, not because they are incestuous. This whole discussion started when a guy admitted to having a fulfilling relationship with his twin, so please accept it is not impossible.
Beyond that you have given more appeals to disgust, and blathered on about this vaguely defined notion of power dynamics. The law already sets an age of consent to protect those under 16yo. At some point we have to say you are responsible for your own relationship choices.
Your point about fraternal rape is a red herring. What happens in fratricide cases? Its awful, but its the rape that's the issue in that scenario not the fact that they are brothers.
Funny how you dismiss every point of view that doesn't match yours, reject evidence as "cherry picked" when it inconveniences you and run screaming for the "you just think it's icky!" defense when someone takes the time to explain things to you.
You also need to stop referring to "vaguely defined notions" -- /u/knickerblocker has been decidedly frank, clear and thorough in explaining himself to you, and it's belittling and insulting for you to pretend he's just not being clear enough. You're being deliberately obtuse and you know it. So do we.
Unplug from your sexy sibling for a few moments and try to actually comprehend what people have been saying to you instead of dismissing everything they say with a patronizing hand wave.
> Its sad to see gay people perform all the same old mental gymnastics to equate finding something icky with finding it morally wrong.
Those aren't the mental gymnastics here. The mental gymnastics are the ones required to think that asking a random stranger, who has an identical twin, a question about twincest is a mature and reasonable thing to do.
It's the exact same thing that straight men on Reddit do with women all the time.
I agree that is wildly inappropriate, but that isn't the drama at hand.
That's /r/gaybros. The attitudes in /r/askgaybros or /r/ainbow differ a lot. /r/gaybros is about promoting an image of normality and conservative respectability. They want to avoid images of sexual decadence and anything which gives "ammo" or validates (gay) stereotypes. They crack down hard on content which doesn't fit the image they want to project
Are you subscribed to the same /r/gaybros I am? Because that's not the community at all.
Of course, don't you remember all that drama about banning fap day Friday and discouraging certain content? Don't you remember when someone started a thread on breaking gender roles and the mods flipped and said they don't want content like that there?
The mods say themselves they want the sub to reflect "heteronormative, cisgender ideals". It was even in the sidebar for a while. Gaybros has always tried to distance itself from sexual promiscuity, and project a classically conservative heterosexual image. It's always been sex negative. It's a conservative sub modded by conservative people who want to promote a conservative, stereotypically "macho" heterosexual image.
Any user that goes against their vision and politics or promotes content and viewpoints they don't want catching on doesn't last very long. Half of the users on /r/askgaybros are guys who were banned from /r/gaybros for having the wrong politics or a different concept of masculinity or for challenging the mods on their views. The easiest way to get banned from gaybros is to talk about casual sex positively and encourage discussion on self loathing or gender roles or challenge a mod on an opinion, and if you imply they latch onto macho stereotypes to over compensate they basically report you to the police for hate crime lmao
edit: don't you think it's a bit weird having a sub for gay men where you can talk about everything except being gay? The mods don't like being reminded they're actually gay and discourage gay specific content. It's a good community but largely toxic and self conscious and discourages the content that might actually be helpful and interesting.
They hate me so much over there they're convinced I'm just "jealous" of their machoness and make copy cat accounts like /u/canyoufistme. A lot of troubled people there
> Of course, don't you remember all that drama about banning fap day Friday and discouraging certain content?
Yeah, that was one mod with grandma issues. The community revolted.
> The mods say themselves they want the sub to reflect "heteronormative, cisgender ideals". It was even in the sidebar for a while.
When? Citation? Never seen this.
> Gaybros has always tried to distance itself from sexual promiscuity, and project a classically conservative heterosexual image. It's always been sex negative. It's a conservative sub modded by conservative people who want to promote a conservative, stereotypically "macho" heterosexual image.
I...I really honestly don't know where you're getting this, man. You're not the first person I've seen make these kind of accusations, but usually they come from hand-wringing prissy little shits in /r/ainbow who think being gay is a misogynist thing to do and all that other third-wave crap.
> Any user that goes against their vision and politics or promotes content and viewpoints they don't want catching on doesn't last very long. Half of the users on /r/askgaybros[1] are guys who were banned from /r/gaybros[2] for having the wrong politics or a different concept of masculinity or for challenging the mods on their views. The easiest way to get banned from gaybros is to talk about casual sex positively and encourage discussion on self loathing or gender roles or challenge a mod on an opinion, and if you imply they latch onto macho stereotypes to over compensate they basically report you to the police for hate crime lmao
> edit: don't you think it's a bit weird having a sub for gay men where you can talk about everything except being gay? The mods don't like being reminded they're actually gay and discourage gay specific content. It's a good community but largely toxic and self conscious and discourages the content that might actually be helpful and interesting.
> They hate me so much over there they're convinced I'm just "jealous" of their machoness and make copy cat accounts like /u/canyoufistme[3] . A lot of troubled people there
I've got you pretty upvoted in RES but I just don't know where you're getting this stuff. The #1 post right now is about world AIDS day and just the other day there was one about Tom Hardy's history with casual sex and just a day before that there was discussion about internalized homophobia in the black community.
You obviously didn't have a good experience there and I can't speak to why, but it really seems like you've made up a narrative about the place that isn't rooted in reality.
> I...I really honestly don't know where you're getting this, man. You're not the first person I've seen make these kind of accusations, but usually they come from hand-wringing prissy little shits in /r/ainbow[1] who think being gay is a misogynist thing to do and all that other third-wave crap.
Yep, great community. You've swayed us.
> hand-wringing prissy little shits in /r/ainbow[1] who think being gay is a misogynist thing to do and all that other third-wave crap.
You had me until you said this. Was that necessary?
> but usually they come from hand-wringing prissy little shits in /r/ainbow who think being gay is a misogynist thing to do and all that other third-wave crap.
This is precisely what /u/canyoufeelme was talking about. I was with you until you started spouting this crap. You've clearly never been to /r/ainbow if you genuinely believe they have an aversion to homosexuality.
Honey, I was there when /r/ainbow began. I watched it turn from an open alternative to the bigoted hugbox of /r/LGBT into an echo chamber for bigoted transsexuals who hate gay men.
Do you think there could possibly be such a thing as a decent sub for (for want of a better word) heteronormative gay men if it was better managed? Or do you think the idea is inherently prone to slipping into conservatism and self-hatred? Or maybe there shouldn't be a need and the most macho of gay men should just learn to feel at home with the rest of the LGBT community? I'd like to know your opinion on this.
Degenerates arguing with other degenerates.
Same thing happens when bestiality, or polygamy drama appears.
I totally agree. I cringe every time I see a reversal of that argument; pedophilia being defended by being compared to homosexuality. It's ignorant, harmful and just plain stupid. I'm not straight, but if my preference is being defended on the same account that could be used for pedophilia, please don't give me that kind of approval.
See, I think paedophilia and homosexuality do have parallels, to a limited extent. In as much as we ought to accept that people have different sexual mores and however disgusting we find them we need to put that aside and be rational. Obviously they diverge significantly in that a paedophile can never morally act on their sexuality.
But I've seen the comparison made quite fairly, (e.g. stating that people should be derided for their actions, not their sexual urges), and a load of gay people rail against paedophilia in a way that I find disappointing.
Edit: I should've said I agree a lot of the time they are compared inappropriately and that pisses me off too.
> See, I think paedophilia and homosexuality do have parallels
The only parallel is that they are not heterosexuality. Homosexuality can result in healthy, fulfilling relationships of consenting adults. Even if it's technically true there are some parallels, their relevance is ridiculous compared to the social effect each of those "sexual orientations" have (pedophilia isn't even considered a sexual orientation, it's a paraphilia). I really don't get how anyone would be inclined to throw homosexuality in the same boat with pedophilia, when it's clear the comparison serves no purpose in discussing whether or not the behavior brought on by it is acceptable.
If the point is that attraction isn't something we can turn on and off the way we please, and that pedophiles can't help their urges, why don't they ever compare it to heterosexuality? It's not like either of those things is intrinsically more correct or valuable biologically speaking, so why not, if we're already ignoring the social implications? It's because people like to think of themselves as normal, and would rather lump the things they are not together than objectively lump things together when it actually makes sense. Obviously, even some people who should know better (like what's mentioned in your original comment) still bark up the wrong tree.
The relevance is context dependent. The times I've agreed with the comparison is when paedophiles are being hated purely for their un-chosen sexual urges, in the same way that gay people are/were. Straight people never had this.
When paedophiles are being compared with gay people to make the point that we need to be more understanding about paedophilia, then that is OK. When paedophiles are being compared with gay people to make the point that gay people are depraved, then that is not OK.
I've seen the argument made both ways and I've seen some gay people have a knee-jerk response to the former, because they resent any association whatsoever with paedophilia. Which is understandable, but not always very helpful. It highlights how hard it is to talk rationally about paedophilia without people getting riled up.
> The times I've agreed with the comparison is when paedophiles are being hated purely for their un-chosen sexual urges, in the same way that gay people are/were. Straight people never had this.
The thing is, you can't divorce those things from their context. The major reason homosexuality was viewed as deviant is because potential relationships that could have come out of it would not be acceptable by social standards because they wouldn't lead to biological offspring. Homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged in Ancient Greece, because it was viewed that romantic/sexual connection between soldiers strengthened the entire army. The phenomenon of attraction was justified by its social implications. When we stopped viewing people like baby-making machines and started considering deeper sociological aspects of romance and marriage, we understood there's no reason to exclude gay people from the narrative. This is something that is very unlikely pedophilia will ever get; a justifying social context.
> When pedophiles are being compared with gay people to make the point that we need to be more understanding about pedophilia, then that is OK.
I would disagree there because of what I wrote above. The reason we as the society are understanding toward gay people isn't and shouldn't be because "they can't help it". It's because its exercise is at the least a socially neutral phenomenon, which can't be said for pedophilia.
I agree just showing moral apprehension and disgust where pedophilia is concerned is not useful and it might even be counter-productive from some angles. On the other hand, I don't think the way out of that is through false equivalence. We should treat pedophilia like a very unfortunate disorder and help people who suffer from it if they are good-willed to get help and seek council in order to make sure they never hurt anyone, but comparing it to healthy sexual orientations doesn't really make sense or help the situation.
I don't think we're really disagreeing on the meat of the issue. I wish I could remember these threads I'm talking about where it was a valid comparison. I don't think you'd object to my point if you saw them. It was in their very specific context which was more about how people wrongly use disgust to inform their morality. I agree that in a lot of instances it is a false equivalence exactly as you have explained.
I think I understand which typical argument you're referring to and I think I get your point. This whole discussion seemed to be more of a difference in style, you go with the argument that they are similar and flip it, and I'd rather reject the argument on principle. I'm pretty sure too we actually agree on the point.
It was nice talking to you, have a nice day :)
You too. :)
If my sister was Cersei...
What? I'm just sayin'....
There's no issue with it for me. Anyone can groom someone else. Yeah, it can be much, much easier when family is involved, sure. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen with other groups. As far as power dynamic? Sure, it could happen, but it's on a case by case basis, and these power dynamics exist legally in other ways between two non-related people.
It's not my business to say, "Well, you two want to fuck, but there could be issues with your power dynamic. I don't know. You two say you want to fuck, but I don't know if you really mean it."
No one should have that authority over anyone else. If two consenting homosexual adults want to have sex, I say that it's none of anyone's business.
More?
There was a /r/wtf post a while ago with twin russian male porn stars who were in love with each other. I don't think it's a big deal, I mean every healthy adolescent male that ever made a list surely wrote 'twin sisters' somewhere near the top.
It's not like they can spawn retard babies anyway.
Isn't homosexuality viewed as taboo by most of the world? Seems kind of like a cop out...
Edit: why the downvotes? I'm just pointing out hypocrisy.
It is. To be honest they're pretty similar.