I don't think pussies work like that.

tcmeow said:
I don't think pussies work like that.

That's just how siblings are.

Actually, is this really scientifically accurate? I'm curious now. 🤔

fox_of_the_arctic said:
Actually, is this really scientifically accurate? I'm curious now. 🤔

Where are you gonna get people for a scientific study?

twigs said:
Where are you gonna get people for a scientific study?

🎵"Sweet Home Alabama"🎵

fox_of_the_arctic said:
Actually, is this really scientifically accurate? I'm curious now. 🤔

Given that incest is genetically detrimental and evolution has given humans* a psychological aversion of sexual thoughts concerning their relatives or even people they grew up with in the same household, I don't think siblings' junk would evolve to match one another. The whole point of that psychological characteristic from evolution is to maintain genetic diversity. Naughty bits matching would be a weird counterintuitive quirk.

*Naturally people with the fetish have varying levels of disregard for this bit.

drakkenfyre said:
Given that incest is genetically detrimental and evolution has given humans* a psychological aversion of sexual thoughts concerning their relatives or even people they grew up with in the same household, I don't think siblings' junk would evolve to match one another. The whole point of that psychological characteristic from evolution is to maintain genetic diversity. Naughty bits matching would be a weird counterintuitive quirk.

*Naturally people with the fetish have varying levels of disregard for this bit.

What about the dude that discovered the genetic issue with incest? Who was he married to again? And this psychological aversion you talk about would probably interest Freud, unless he's just another member of the convenient group with varying levels of disregard for this bit.

Incest is a super common theme in today's culture. People say shit like:

"Call me "Daddy" in bed"

"She had these massive mommy milkers"

"Onii-chan~"

And they don't bat an eye.

An Evolutionary Psychological aversion? Bruh. People had sex with who/whatever in the past. I've literally listened to someone recount a wet dream they had about a sandcastle bucket. The human mind is kooky, and evolution is fucky. We apply reason to lots of problems to solve them in our day to day, but it doesn't work on everything. For instance, if evolution were so wise in the ways of genetic design, we'd have genitals that wouldn't fit together with people we're too closely related to (like a duck's vagina maze or their equally weird corkscrew cock, or some other wacky shit). If evolution is so savy, why didn't we just evolve out of this inbreeding problem. One final nail in the coffin of this theory, there are very successful species that exclusively have sex with their offspring as soon as there are offspring to have sex with. Namely: Bees and Ants.

If sis wants ta believe bro's dick is a custom fit, power to her.

scriptkitty said:
What about the dude that discovered the genetic issue with incest? Who was he married to again? And this psychological aversion you talk about would probably interest Freud, unless he's just another member of the convenient group with varying levels of disregard for this bit.

First off, you sound butthurt, like you're offended at what I said. Discovering something doesn't mean you're automatically going to do "the right thing" in the situation and everything come out well for you. It's like the list of inventors that were killed by their own inventions even when they knew how dangerous they were. And concerning Freud, a lot of his theories have been dismissed and heavily criticized. He had his own fetishes and liked to project. Modern psychology more or less considers him on the quack end of the psychology spectrum.

Incest is a super common theme in today's culture. People say shit like:

You seem to not be grasping the difference between fantasy and reality. They do not always coexist. Years ago during a study it was discovered forced sex fantasies were surprisingly common among women. How many of those same women would want to actually be held down and raped? Probably none. By that same token how many people out there that love to be tied up by their lover with silk ropes do you think would be into being tied up with actual rope and forced to do things against their will?

Fantasy =/= Reality

Calling someone "daddy" or "mommy" in bed is seen as kinky. And people get a thrill out of that. That does not mean those same people would automatically be into actual incest. And BTW, "mommy milkers" is not a incestuous term. Mothers are associated with breastfeeding, during which the breasts enlarge. So "big mommy milkers" is a a descriptive term for large breasts.

An Evolutionary Psychological aversion? Bruh. People had sex with who/whatever in the past.

You do realize it's an established thing, right? There are papers written about it. Go do some research. You want another example? Actually you want a couple more examples? Eating feces and dead bodies. Two things that most people want nothing to do with, because we've been conditioned (through evolution!) that both are harmful to us. Feces is obvious, and rotting dead bodies are health hazards as well, in addition to whatever other diseases they may carry. Most people avoid dead bodies. Hell most people won't even touch one. Are you going to say that's a theory? That's an ingrained aversion given to us by evolution.

But there's always exceptions. Both are fetishized by plenty of individuals. But that does not invalidate the fact that the aversion is a real thing.

For instance, if evolution were so wise in the ways of genetic design, we'd have genitals that wouldn't fit together with people we're too closely related to

It would be unnecessary because by default we're not supposed to be interested in relatives for procreation.

If evolution is so savy, why didn't we just evolve out of this inbreeding problem.

You're expecting evolution to... completely change how genetics work? Genetics? The thing evolution uses to do its thing? That's like asking someone to take a bucket of Legos and create something out of them so advanced they're no longer Legos.

One final nail in the coffin of this theory

Again, do research.

there are very successful species that exclusively have sex with their offspring as soon as there are offspring to have sex with. Namely: Bees and Ants.

The subject was humans. Not other animals. No other animal on the planet has the same amount of mental baggage we as a species have.

Now I'm going to blow your mind and tell you the reverse is a known phenomenon, too. There are cases of incest where that inhibition was missing because the relatives in question didn't grow up together. There's a relatively recent case where a son who had been given up for adoption at birth eventually met his biological mother after he was an adult and the two ended up having sex. A lot. They were caught and ordered to stay away from one another. They didn't. Psychologists chimed in and said the overwhelming mix of feelings such as a mother being reunited with a son she never knew getting channeled into a sexual thing when that mental inhibition had never developed between the two people in question is more common than you'd realize.

Ultimately dude I think the real issue here is you took offense at what I said, taking it as me condemning your fetish and telling you it (and by extension, you) are bad or whatever. I'm not. And I'm not telling you you're wrong for being into it. I just decided to make a comment on an image I was already looking at. Think real hard about that.

drakkenfyre said:
"A bunch of stuff"

post #4671426

qwertyrian said:
post #4671426

Critical thinking is a skill few people actually use these days.

drakkenfyre said:

Ultimately dude I think the real issue here is you took offense at what I said, taking it as me condemning your fetish and telling you it (and by extension, you) are bad or whatever. I'm not. And I'm not telling you you're wrong for being into it. I just decided to make a comment on an image I was already looking at. Think real hard about that.

I did snap at you, and I don't think I did a good job of communicating what I was trying to say:

I don't think an aversion to incest in our society is something evolution gave to us. I think the aversion has social origins.

Maybe you think differently, and if you do, enjoy the fact that thought is free. But consider when sharing (and I wish I'd done so more myself the first time) that others will hear you and be effected.

You can say, "I just decided to make a comment on an image I was already looking at..." and that may be, but people don't have to like it. And I didn't. I hated it. I hated it because I felt it expressed a link between bad genes and liking incest porn, and I feel this is the wrong place to talk like that.

You tell me you think my snapping at you was because of some internalised hatred, and I think you're right. But not about my kink. This is the safest place to discuss my kink, and I love that, which may have motivated my impulsive reply. I'm actually angry about how carelessly and confidently you spoke at the expense of others. Your words reminded me of how I used to speak, and I hate how I used to be - given how impulsively I replied, how I still am sometimes. In the past I loved taking any chance to sounds smart and in control, and I put my own feelings before others.

If I was at a party and someone said, "Hey, I heard a daily glass of wine is actually GOOD for you!" I'd say something like, "Well, actually, Rachel... alcohol is literally poison, and any amount is bad for you, medically speaking." I was a very facts-don't-care-about-feelings person. But I didn't have to say anything. The party would have been better without it. I could have said, "Yeah, I heard somethin' like that, anti-oxidants or something, right?". But then we would both be right, and I needed someone to be wrong to feel right. I needed to be the smart one.

I hate that person. And I hate that when you spoke, I saw them again.

So, I've thought real hard about what you've said. I still hate it, and I still think you're pushing an idea that you only superficially understand to an audience that doesn't really want/need it. I think it doesn't do anything to make the experience of this stellar piece of art better. I think I should have been more clear in my initial reply, and I think I've thought about this whole thing long enough.

I'm happy to move on, and enjoy some more awesome art! Maybe I'll just tap the downvote button next time <:-|

scriptkitty said:
I don't think an aversion to incest in our society is something evolution gave to us. I think the aversion has social origins.

It has both components. Not everything is binary. The social stigma is layered ontop of the biological aversion. You understand things can have multiple facets, right?

Maybe you think differently, and if you do, enjoy the fact that thought is free. But consider when sharing (and I wish I'd done so more myself the first time) that others will hear you and be effected.

So you're an advocate for self-censorship because someone's feelings might be hurt by a biological fact? You're acting like I came in here and told everyone who's into incest that they're disgusting, terrible, sick in the head, etc. etc. insert whatever insults you imagine. I didn't. You're projecting, my man. That's your own internalized self feelings. I stated a fact. That's all.

You can say, "I just decided to make a comment on an image I was already looking at..." and that may be, but people don't have to like it. And I didn't. I hated it. I hated it because I felt it expressed a link between bad genes and liking incest porn, and I feel this is the wrong place to talk like that.

You missed what I was hinting at. Also, that's on you. You're confusing biological facts with criticism of your fetish. It's kind of like someone pointing out that a 4' horse dick going inside a character that's the same height would be fatal in real life (which it would be) and you get offended and start ripping into them because you think they're criticizing YOU personally. The funny thing is I have a good friend who suffers from that exact same thing; he cannot take a criticism of anything he likes as anything but a direct attack on him. You like (X) flavor of ice cream and he likes (Y) and you say you don't care for (Y) and he immediately takes it that you're insulting and damning him for his choice. As soon as I started reading your reply I recognized that mindset.

No one, especially not me, were saying you liking incest porn means you have bad genes. You're trying to make a correlation that wasn't there and I never said.

I'm actually angry about how carelessly and confidently you spoke at the expense of others. Your words reminded me of how I used to speak, and I hate how I used to be - given how impulsively I replied, how I still am sometimes. In the past I loved taking any chance to sounds smart and in control, and I put my own feelings before others.

My guy, I spoke confidently because it's a proven thing. You want to know some other biological facts? Cultures which did not historically partake in drinking milk tend to have lactose intolerance among the population because the mutation that allows people above infanthood to digest it didn't naturally evolve due to exposure. The "asparagus pee smell" is the result on a specific gene which if you do not have you can neither produce nor detect the smell. Liking things with a sour taste is an acquired, uh, taste because evolution has conditioned us to equate sour = poisonous. Similarly to how bright colors in insects are a warning sign to predators that they are poisonous (or are fooling them into thinking they are.)

These are biological facts. Not feelings. I can speak confidently about those, too, because they're also proven biological facts. There are a TON of biological stuff evolution has packed into us like that. Scientists used to think that humans were unique in that of all the animals on the planet, we had zero instincts. That was the widely-held belief for a long, long time. And then they discovered no, we have many instincts. And the research on them continues. Same deal for pheromones. Science used to claim we neither had them nor could detect them. And that was again something that was discovered to be completely wrong.

If I was at a party and someone said, "Hey, I heard a daily glass of wine is actually GOOD for you!" I'd say something like, "Well, actually, Rachel... alcohol is literally poison, and any amount is bad for you, medically speaking." I was a very facts-don't-care-about-feelings person. But I didn't have to say anything. The party would have been better without it. I could have said, "Yeah, I heard somethin' like that, anti-oxidants or something, right?". But then we would both be right, and I needed someone to be wrong to feel right. I needed to be the smart one.

The funny thing is facts don't care about your feelings. I'm sorry but your hang-ups are not my responsibility. And if you didn't pay attention I said what I did because SOMEONE ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT BIOLOGY. No, it would not be logical for the genitals of siblings to naturally fit each other perfectly. I didn't just poke in here unprompted and go WELL ACKTHUALLY...

I hate that person. And I hate that when you spoke, I saw them again.

Again, that's on you. I'm not responsible for how you internalize self-hatred. You saw something that reminded you of how much you hated yourself and lashed out unnecessarily and with the vitriol and anger like I'd personally insulted you as a human being.

So, I've thought real hard about what you've said. I still hate it, and I still think you're pushing an idea that you only superficially understand

It's. A. Proven. Biological. Fact. And there have been documented cases of incest happening with much, MUCH more frequency among family members that did not grow up or live together. Like the proverbial cousins at the family reunion that take a fancy to one another. That's a stereotype for a reason. I mean you can literally read papers/watch videos of psychologists talking about this exact thing.

It's even more clear than when I replied to you before. You've got self-loathing and self-hatred dripping off you man. And since you seem to have missed my not exactly subtle hint above, I'm into this, too. This is one of my kinks. And being aware of how evolution worked with us in regards to this doesn't offend me or make me hate myself, or anything. I can take information that is a biological fact and not turn it into some kind of internalized self-hate and lash out at people who mention a genetic negative to it. Incest is terrible for genetics. It's an evolutionary dead-end that will eventually snuff out a lineage given enough time because the defects become too severe for survival. Knowing all of that doesn't make me hate myself or feel insulted. And I'm not condemning or criticizing anyone else into it. It's a kink. And understanding the genetic downside to it is just acknowledging a fact, not implying a moral or genetic failing on behalf of yourself. Just like people who are into scat (which I find disgusting, personally) know that eating it is biologically unhealthy for them.

I'm happy to move on, and enjoy some more awesome art! Maybe I'll just tap the downvote button next time <:-|

Feel free. But remember, no one's hating on you dude, except you yourself. The best I can say is try not to take everything so personally. There was no insult intended, but you took it as one. Maybe that little voice inside you that you hated because it made you feel like you had to interject just got redirected into things like making replies like your initial one to me.