Why is INCEST wrong?

[dhurandhar]

Not that I am interested in INCEST....or anything like that...but looking back from the religious perspective, it seems that we are products of brother to sister incest:D

If you believe in Judeo-Christian /Hindu religions...then either it was Adam and Eve....or Man and a Woman created by Brahma

Now the Man (adam) and Woman(eve) got children....now for each male child produced, I doubt whether God provided a female from that male child's rib...like he did for Adam (or provided a woman as Brahma did)...

So, the brother screwed the sister to get more kids...and the world was populated...meaning essentially INCEST is the root of this world's population:D

The question naturally arises, Why is INCEST wrong?

Hopefully, this opens a proverbial can of Worms...moderators are requested to move this to Laal Mirchi if they think fit:D

[echarcha]

I wont get into the moral ethics of why incest is wrong as you have asked this question in the pilosophy forum. For me, philosophy is also a science and hence I will give the scientific reasons -

Same genes can cause birth defects, mental retardation and a host of other problems. Hence close relatives or immediate siblings should never marry.

As to moral ethics of this issue - Our race has progressed on the foundations of family. A brother and sister cannot marry as theirs is not a man and woman relation. Its a different relation.

Maybe God created the concept of family and not allowing siblings to marry as He knew that marrying in the same gene pool would create a host of problems.

Wheww.. I hope I was able to answer you.

[dhurandhar]

I wont get into the moral ethics of why incest is wrong as you have asked this question in the pilosophy forum. For me, philosophy is also a science and hence I will give the scientific reasons -

Same genes can cause birth defects, mental retardation and a host of other problems. Hence close relatives or immediate siblings should never marry.

As to moral ethics of this issue - Our race has progressed on the foundations of family. A brother and sister cannot marry as theirs is not a man and woman relation. Its a different relation.

Maybe God created the concept of family and not allowing siblings to marry as He knew that marrying in the same gene pool would create a host of problems.

Wheww.. I hope I was able to answer you.

Thanx for fueling this thread....at the start you did not want to get into moral ethics but you ended on that note...just a casual observation, no problem with that:D

If same genes can cause all these problems how come they didn't at the start of the human society?

and thinking more about it from Judeo Christian perspective.....Adam actually masturbated and we are the products of masturbation:D

If Eve was created from Adam's rib...she was virtually Adam...or is that the Biblical version of the term, "Ardhangini"??

Guys n Gals....this is fun thread...don't be shy:D

[JaiSpeaks]

There was no concept of family during Adam and Eve's time . We were still animals then and eveolving and since we could make a difference between right and wrong (with that whole apple stuff), I think over time the whole concept of Incest fell on the wrong side of things ..

Now with so many generations passed our beliefs in civilization and abt societal restrictions have been so imbibed into us , incest can never find a place in good healthy civilization

So Why is it wrong .. It is wrong because our civilization makes it wrong ..

[echarcha]

There was no concept of family during Adam and Eve's time . We were still animals then and eveolving and since we could make a difference between right and wrong (with that whole apple stuff), I think over time the whole concept of Incest fell on the wrong side of things ..

Now with so many generations passed our beliefs in civilization and abt societal restrictions have been so imbibed into us , incest can never find a place in good healthy civilization

So Why is it wrong .. It is wrong because our civilization makes it wrong ..

Not just civilisation but science also proves that procreation by members of the same gene pool leads to disastrous results and defects for the offspring.

[dhurandhar]

Not just civilisation but science also proves that procreation by members of the same gene pool leads to disastrous results and defects for the offspring.

never trust life science researchers....they are half-witted bums who do half-hearted research in a fully slick manner:D

For e.g. the father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel, fudged his results...I suggest you read the book, False Prophets by Alexander Kohn...more than half of the examples are about life science chicanery:D

But cha pai....pls ponder over my question...if incest leads to defects in offspring....how come it did not when Adam and Eve started...or if you choose to believe life science folks...how come most of us can be traced to couple of females in ancient Africa??:D

[JaiSpeaks]

Not just civilisation but science also proves that procreation by members of the same gene pool leads to disastrous results and defects for the offspring.

yup fully agree to that too ..

[dhurandhar]

yup fully agree to that too ..

why? what convinces you?

[JaiSpeaks]

Well contrary to you I beleive in scientific facts however smudgy they are ...

[kingfisher]

Dhurubhai,

Please define the term incest ?
What action constitutes as incest ?

[dhurandhar]

Well contrary to you I beleive in scientific facts however smudgy they are ...

Btw, you are contradicting yourself....u claimed to believe in God (Vishnu) and science does not support that as a fact:D

Blind belief propagates pseudo-science...I for one have, "Believe until you find holes in the theory/model/data", attitude.

[dhurandhar]

Dhurubhai,

Please define the term incest ?
What action constitutes as incest ?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Incest

In particular, I am talking about the possibility of brother-sister type incest that we are apparently products of:D

[dhurandhar]

Here's what genetics apparently says...I have underlined the argument that I find usually overlooked:D

Genetics
Today, the general availability of birth control methods has made inbreeding a largely separate issue from incest. Opponents of incest argue, however, that incest should still be restricted since birth control is not always 100% effective.

Some have suggested that the incest taboo is a social mechanism to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. First, in many societies partners with whom marriage is forbidden and partners with whom marriage is preferred are equally related in genetic terms; the inbreeding argument would not explain the incest taboo in these societies. Second, the inbreeding argument oversimplifies the consequences of inbreeding in a population. Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals. If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy. Thus, the frequency of a defect-carrying gene in a population may go up, or down, when inbreeding occurs.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

And here is the link to some interesting mathematics of inbreeding that considers Adam and Eve as one example problem:D

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/wrigco.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Chromosomal genes have variations (alleles) which express individual characters. Humans inherit a copy of each gene from each parent, so have two alleles of each gene. (We ignore mitochondrial DNA -- inherited strictly from the mother -- and X and Y chromosomes -- which males inherit strictly from mother and father respectively.)

We will say an individual has an inbred gene if both copies are the same allele. Throughout this discussion we assume two individuals who are unrelated have different alleles.

In the following diagrams, we show a man marrying his half-sister and producing a daughter, Julia. Instead of four grandparents, Julia has two ordinary grandparents and one ``double grandparent.'' The distinct alleles of a gene are labelled in the diagrams: Sam has A & B alleles; Mary has C & D alleles in (a) but two C alleles in (b), and so on.

What is the probability Julia's gene will be inbred? Diagrams (a1) and (a2) are identical, just showing two different ways to depict the same pedigree. The three grandparents in all these diagrams are unrelated to each other, but in diagram (b) the double grandmother is, herself, already inbred.


(a1) (a2) (b)

Sam Mary Jim Mary Sam Mary Jim Sam Mary Jim
A.B C.D E.F C.D A.B === C.D === E.F A.B === C.C === E.F
\ / \ / | | | |
\ / \ / | | | |
father mother father === mother father === mother
\ / | |
\ / | |
?.? ?.? ?.?
Julia Julia Julia


The father inherits one allele from his mother, Mary, but has only a 50% chance of passing that allele to Julia. (The other 50% of the time he passes on Sam's gene.) Similarly the mother has a 50% chance of passing an allele from Mary to Julia. Julia has a 25% chance (50% * 50%) of getting both alleles from her double grandmother Mary.

Assuming Julia does inherit both of her alleles from Mary, in (a) she has equal chances to finish with C.C, C.D, D.C or D.D, while in (b) she will always then have C.C. Thus the net inbreeding probability for Julia is 0.125 in (a), and 0.250 in (b). This inbreeding probability is called the Wright Inbreeding Coefficient (``WIC'').

In (a), the double grandmother is not inbred (has WIC=0), while in (b) she is inbred (has WIC=1). If instead she had WIC = 0.1 (was inbred with 10% probability), then Julia's WIC would be .9*.125 + .1*.25 = .1375. More generally the WIC for the offspring of half-siblings is .125*(1+p) where p is the WIC for the double grandparent.

The discussion of probabilities may seem out of place: Why don't we just do a DNA test on Julia and see what actual alleles she has inherited? That would make sense if the human nucleus had but a single gene, but in fact there are many thousands, and Julia may inherit the grandfather's allele for some genes and the grandmother's allele for others. The Wright Coefficient thus estimates the proportion of genes that are inbred.

Many genes will have only a few distinct alleles possible, so an individual can end up with identical alleles even though his or her ancestors appear unrelated. But this fact does not change the utility of the Wright Inbreeding Coefficient, which is understood most easily with the simplified model of the diagrams above.

Calculating WIC with a single common ancestor
In diagram (a) or (b) draw a path from Mary to Julia and back to Mary which touches no individual twice except Mary herself. This can be done in only one way and produces a path of length L = 4. Julia's WIC is given by
WIC = 2^(1-L)*(1+p)
where p is Mary's WIC. Since L = 4 in the example, we end up with WIC = .125*(1+p), just as before.

In the diagram now, suppose that Jim is himself the son of Mary, by yet a third husband. Now there would be a second path from Mary to Julia back to Mary, with L = 5, and the net WIC would be the sum of the two WIC constituents,
WIC = (2^(1-4) + 2^(1-5)) *(1+p) = .1875*(1+p)

Finally suppose Sam is also Mary's son, by yet a fourth husband. This adds two more paths, of lengths 5 and 6 and the net WIC would be the sum of four contributing WIC's:
WIC = (2^(1-4) + 2^(1-5) + 2^(1-5) + 2^(1-6)) *(1+p) = .28125*(1+p)

Here are the four distinct paths for that final case. Note that no individual, except Mary herself, occurs twice in any path.

Mary - J's father - Julia - J's mother - Mary
Mary - Sam - J's father - Julia - J's mother - Mary
Mary - J's father - Julia - J's mother - Jim - Mary
Mary - Sam - J's father - Julia - J's mother - Jim - Mary
The reason the formula works is that it simply considers the way alleles can be inherited and sums the probability appropriately. The probability rule
prob(X or Y) = prob(X) + prob(Y)
only works when X and Y are exclusive events (that is prob(X and Y) = 0), but this condition holds here.

Calculating WIC with multiple common ancestors
Finally we are ready for the general formula. Again we simply add contributing WIC's. For example, if Julia's parents had two common ancestors, Mary and Malcolm, and neither Mary nor Malcolm is the other's ancestor, we can compute the WIC contribution from Malcolm to Julia as in the preceding section and simply add it to the contribution computed from Mary:
WIC_net = WIC_due_to_Malcolm + WIC_due_to_Mary

If Malcolm is Mary's ancestor (or vice versa) the simple addition will still work, as long as you follow the rule given above -- don't count paths from Malcolm to Julia to Malcolm in which Mary (or any individual) occurs twice.

Example 1
Let's practice the WIC calculation with a simple example. The first step is to prepare a pedigree of the target whose WIC is to be computed. One may go back just a few generations to keep the arithmetic simple, but of couse this may lead to a lower WIC being computed.

We'll look at part of the pedigree of Alphonso XII, a 19th-century King of Spain. (Throughout this page we assume that ``official genealogies'' are correct; Queen Isabella had many lovers and it is very doubtful that Francisco de Asis was the father of King Alphonso XII. Simlarly, King Charles IV was cuckolded and it is unlikely he fathered Francisco de Paula.)


Marie-Louise Charles IV
of Parma ===== K of Spain
(MLP) / | \ (CIV)
/ \ \
/ \ \ Frances I of
/ \ Isabel ===== Two Sicilies
/ \ (IS) / \ (FI)
/ _____\________/ \
/ / \ \
Francisco Louise of Ferdinand VII Cristina Maria
de Paula ==== Two Sicil. K of Spain ==== of Two Sicil.
(FDP) \ (L2S) (FVII) / (C2S)
\ /
Francisco Isabel
de Asis ===== Q of Spain
(FDA) | (QI)
|
Alphonso XII
K of Spain

The next step is to prepare a list of the people who appear as ancestors of both the father, Francisco de Asis, and mother, Queen Isabel. Is this case the list would include Charles V and his wife Marie-Louise and Frances I and his wife Isabel. We need their WIC's as well; for now we assume them to be zero. Then we list the paths:

MLP -- FDP -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- FVII -- MLP
MLP -- FDP -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- C2S -- IS -- MLP
MLP -- IS -- L2S -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- FVII -- MLP
CIV -- FDP -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- FVII -- CIV
CIV -- FDP -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- C2S -- IS -- CIV
CIV -- IS -- L2S -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- FVII -- CIV
IS -- L2S -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- C2S -- IS
FI -- L2S -- FDA -- Alphonso XII -- QI -- C2S -- FI
You should check that the eight paths shown are all correct and that no other paths have been overlooked. In summary, we have

For common ancestor MLP (Marie-Louise of Parma), three paths of lengths 6, 7, and 7.
For common ancestor CIV (King Charles VII), three paths of lengths 6, 7, and 7.
For common ancestor IS (Isabel), one path of length 6.
For common ancestor FI (Frances I), one path of length 6.
Thus we have eight inbreeding paths altogether, four of length 6 and four of length 7.
Since we assume (for now) that none of these common ancestors are themselves inbred, the computation becomes very simple. WIC = 4*2^(1-6) + 4*2^(1-7) = 0.1875

(When I do such calculations, I sometimes like to take advantage of the strange ``arithmetic rule'' 2k*{N} = k*{N-1}. With this rule, the ``sum'' of path lengths 4*{6} + 4*{7} can be simplified:
WIC = 4*{6} + 4*{7} = 4*{6} + 2*{6} = 6*{6} = 3*{5} = {4} + {5}
= 2^(1-4) + 2^(1-5) = 0.1875

Example 2, Siblings marry
Suppose Adam and Eve are unrelated and not inbred; they mate to produce Seth and Azura, who mate in turn to produce Enosh and Noam, who mate in turn to produce Cainan and Mualeleth, who mate in turn to produce Mahalalel and his sister, What are the WIC's?

Enosh and Noam (generation 3) are the first inbred people in this lineage; WIC = .25 for the offspring of siblings. Cainan and his sister (generation 4) have WIC = 3/8 = .375.

For Mahalalel (generation 5) his common grandparents are themselves inbred; it turns out his WIC = .50. If the inbreeding continued in this fashion, WIC would be 0.594, 0.672, 0.734, 0.785, 0.826, 0.859, 0.886 for generations 6 - 12 respectively, eventually becoming asymptotic to 1.000.

Example 3, Single female
Suppose a black widow spider mates with the only male, kills him, but then gives birth only to a single male. She repeats this for many generations. The first two males mentioned have WIC=0, and the third has WIC=.25. For subsequent generations, WIC would be 0.375, 0.438, 0.469, 0.484, 0.492, 0.496, 0.498, 0.499, but would never exceed 0.500.

Example 4, Alphonso XII of Spain
We already did Alphonso XII above, but with an incomplete pedigree that ignored some important inbreeding paths. Let's do him again. He seems interesting to me because he finishes with WIC=0.250, exactly the same as for the offspring of siblings (when there is no other inbreeding). He has the highest WIC of anyone in my database, except for those who actually were the offspring of siblings.

From the following partial pedigree a WIC of .234 can be computed for Alphonso XII. Only two of Alphonso's great great grandparents are missing from the diagram; these are Philip's wife (who was Philip's own 1st cousin once removed) and Ferdinand I's wife (who was Ferdinand's own 2nd cousin once removed). These and other inbreedings bring the WIC up to .250.

If you want to try your hand at computing the WIC manually in this complicated pedigree, check your work (or check mine) with the relevant path lengths I've shown below.



Philip V Isabella
K of Spain ===== Farnese
/ \
/ \
Philip Charles III Marie-Amelie
| K of Spain ====== of Saxony
| / \
| / \
Marie-Louise Charles IV Ferdinand I
of Parma ===== K of Spain of Sicily
/ | \ |
/ \ \ |
/ \ \ Frances I of
/ \ Isabel ===== Two Sicilies
/ \ / \
/ _____\________/ \
/ / \ \
Francisco Louise of Ferdinand VII Cristina Maria
de Paula ==== Two Sicil. K of Spain ==== of Two Sicil.
\ /
\ /
Francisco Isabel
de Asis ===== Q of Spain
|
|
Alphonso XII
K of Spain

The relevant paths are summarized in this table:

Common ancestor Path lengths Ancestor inbreeding (*)
Maria Luisa 6,7,7 0
Charles IV 6,7,7 0
Francis I 6 0
Isabel 6 0.0625
Charles III 9,9,10,10 0
Marie-Amelie 9,9,10,10 0
Philip V 2*10,6*11,2*12 0
Farnese 2*10,6*11,2*12 0

(* - To make the example self-contained, further inbreeding and relationships among these ancestors is ignored, so the only inbreeding considered is for Isabel, and Alphonso XII himself.) From this diagram, you can calculate Alphonso XII's WIC as 120/512 = .234375.

Example 5, Small randomly breeding population
If a village maintains its size as N, and mates are selcted randomly, WIC will be k/N.

[JaiSpeaks]

Btw, you are contradicting yourself....u claimed to believe in God (Vishnu) and science does not support that as a fact:D

Blind belief propagates pseudo-science...I for one have, "Believe until you find holes in the theory/model/data", attitude.

No contradictions here at all .. Never said I only believe in scientific facts..

BTW .. back to your question Why do you think incest is wrong ?

I dont think you believe in either ..

[JaiSpeaks]

why? what convinces you?


U realize u never put your smiley icon .... here ..

[Budmaas]

Ye Dhurru ..........Phir sanak gaya ....... :eek: :eek:

[dhurandhar]

No contradictions here at all .. Never said I only believe in scientific facts..

BTW .. back to your question Why do you think incest is wrong ?

I dont think you believe in either ..

So you have a convenient belief system:D

I can't say either...there is not sufficient information to say either way...but I thought it might be a good idea to bring some interesting "dark" secrets that nobody dares to talk about:D

[JaiSpeaks]

So you have a convenient belief system:D

YUP IF THATS WHAT YOU CALL IT .. WORKS FOR ME

I can't say either...there is not sufficient information to say either way...but I thought it might be a good idea to bring some interesting "dark" secrets that nobody dares to talk about:D

but still u didnt answer the question

[dhurandhar]

but still u didnt answer the question

I said...I can't decide...not enough evidence to lean either way:D

[kingfisher]

Me thinks nothing (in incest) is wrong if :

Both persons are grown up adults.
Are in right state of mind to make proper decisions(not drugged etc)
Not forced into it.
Do not feel guilty about it.
Not doing it to cause harm to someone (including themselves)
Take proper precautions if the byproduct of this act can be painful/harmful( a disabled child or STD should be avoided)

[vyomkeshsaxena]

Me thinks nothing (in incest) is wrong if :

Both persons are grown up adults.
Are in right state of mind to make proper decisions(not drugged etc)
Not forced into it.
Do not feel guilty about it.
Not doing it to cause harm to someone (including themselves)
Take proper precautions if the byproduct of this act can be painful/harmful( a disabled child or STD should be avoided)

mercantile law mein yeh sab points kahi na kahi aate hai....i mean law of contracts and stuff mein.....yaad dila diye woh din jab is subject ki moti- moti kitabei.n padh kar main apni sister ko padhta tha...who was doing her MBA then :D

ayways...incest is wrong for me!!

i dont care about genetics or whatever....its WRONG..period!!

[tantric_yogi]

Sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, aunts, uncles, chachas, chachis, maussas, maussis, nanas, nanis, co-workers, assistants, secretaries ... all of these relationships have become so complicated. Who would want to so much as even think of adding sex in to this powder keg of intimate human interactions and destroy it all ... only a mentally retarded!

Stay away. Don’t even think about this shit. Pitcairn is for history books.

[deshpremi]

One simpul kweshchun...

A lot of south Indian communities (especially in Andhra) still believe in marriage within the family.

A guy is generally married to his Mama's (Moms brohter) daughter. That would surely make them from the same gene pool, coz the girls dad and the guys mom are related. So going by that, the whole community shud end up with defective pieces.

Boy this will bring out a whole can of worms about Gultis !!!

[Indian]

One simpul kweshchun...

A lot of south Indian communities (especially in Andhra) still believe in marriage within the family.

A guy is generally married to his Mama's (Moms brohter) daughter. That would surely make them from the same gene pool, coz the girls dad and the guys mom are related. So going by that, the whole community shud end up with defective pieces.

Boy this will bring out a whole can of worms about Gultis !!!


true
in AP, doctors always advice not to go for this kind of marraige.
ppl just started realising.

[deshpremi]

ppl just started realising...

How? What made the realisation dawn upon them?

[Indian]

ppl just started realising...

How? What made the realisation dawn upon them?

the reason why gultis still prefer this kind of marriages is, their love for the family and keep up close relations with near & dear.
boy has a kind of 'right' on mama's daughter.

this tradition has resulted in lot of kids born with various disesases , physical disabilities, etc. One of the major and immideate effect being deffective eye sight . The moment you see a gulti with spectacles , you should enquire about his parents marraige .
Educated gultis are realising this effect, campaign in media through famous doctors is also showing results. But i should say it is very less.
Still ....Educated gulti youth prefer to get married to their Mama's daughter.
You dont need to ask about rural ppl.
Family affections, traditions are winning over science & facts.
after effect is a very sad result.

[Cooldude]

the reason why gultis still prefer this kind of marriages is, their love for the family and keep up close relations with near & dear.
boy has a kind of 'right' on mama's daughter.



This custom not merely restricted to Andhraites alone, but is prevalent in Tamil Nadu as well. There too a boy has this so called first right over his Mama's(mother's brother) daughter. In fact during a wedding there's a ritual performed between the bride's in laws & her Mama wherein the bride's Mama hands over this right to the in laws.

But this practice is gradually dying down due to the government discouraging such weddings & doctors too advising against such nuptials.

In the north particularly in Bombay, the Parsi community still have such weddings amongst cousins, which is an age old practice in their tradition.

[dhurandhar]

This custom not merely restricted to Andhraites alone, but is prevalent in Tamil Nadu as well. There too a boy has this so called first right over his Mama's(mother's brother) daughter. In fact during a wedding there's a ritual performed between the bride's in laws & her Mama wherein the bride's Mama hands over this right to the in laws.

But this practice is gradually dying down due to the government discouraging such weddings & doctors too advising against such nuptials.

In the north particularly in Bombay, the Parsi community still have such weddings amongst cousins, which is an age old practice in their tradition.

If you (all those who advocate against incest based on genetics) read some of my posts in this thread, the incest dynamics are not plain and simple. The faulty gene can be weeded out or made dominant depending on the population engaging in incest.

So, I think I did find some rationale to my question of why incest did not manifest in defected humans when it first started....so now my conclusion is more like:

If a large segment of population engages in incest, the chances that defective gene will dominate are very likely. On the other hand, if a small segment of population engages in incest for upto certain "critical" generation...the defective gene actually gets weeded out.

Therefore, scriptures banned incest after some time.....

I could be wrong...but I think my argument if plausible

that leads to one interesting idea...could incest weed out a gene that makes humans receptive to AIDS virus?:D

[TerminatorJR]

Did you forget to put a POLL on this one ?

[dhurandhar]

Did you forget to put a POLL on this one ?

if you are mod....go ahead..put a poll:D

if not, modys are requested to accomodate terminator's wishes:D

[Polite Ghost]

Not that I am interested in INCEST....or anything like that...but looking back from the religious perspective, it seems that we are products of brother to sister incest:D

If you believe in Judeo-Christian /Hindu religions...then either it was Adam and Eve....or Man and a Woman created by Brahma

Now the Man (adam) and Woman(eve) got children....now for each male child produced, I doubt whether God provided a female from that male child's rib...like he did for Adam (or provided a woman as Brahma did)...

So, the brother screwed the sister to get more kids...and the world was populated...meaning essentially INCEST is the root of this world's population:D

The question naturally arises, Why is INCEST wrong?

Hopefully, this opens a proverbial can of Worms...moderators are requested to move this to Laal Mirchi if they think fit:D


um.. could u make it clear, if
1. one should argue on religious basis or scientific one?
2. are we talking about incestuous "realtionships" OR incestuous "marriages" (a slight diff, where producing offsprings comes into question)

[dhurandhar]

um.. could u make it clear, if
1. one should argue on religious basis or scientific one?
2. are we talking about incestuous "realtionships" OR incestuous "marriages" (a slight diff, where producing offsprings comes into question)

Either way, incestuous intimate relationships can lead to producing offsprings...or incestuous marriages can lead to no offsprings depending on a few factors:D

[Polite Ghost]

No, Mr. Dhurandhar.
you are missing my question entirely.
Your initial argument is correct. And even without taking into account how man came into being, during the initial nomadic existance, incestuous relations AND offsprings were inevitable.
secondly incest still exists, even in socially acceptable forms, like 'mama ki ladki' thing.

also, as i recall, skipping the complicated genetics and arguments involved, they have traced our ancestry to a single ancient mother.

actually ur question should read, "is incest WRONG" instead of "is ICNEST wrong"

so, since you have started the argument, i just wanted to ask you, when u ask is incest "wrong" what is "wrong" in ur point of view.

otherwise i would assume, that the point of ur topic starting is just to create sensatin, and not discuss the issue :D

[dhurandhar]

No, Mr. Dhurandhar.
you are missing my question entirely.
Your initial argument is correct. And even without taking into account how man came into being, during the initial nomadic existance, incestuous relations AND offsprings were inevitable.
secondly incest still exists, even in socially acceptable forms, like 'mama ki ladki' thing.

also, as i recall, skipping the complicated genetics and arguments involved, they have traced our ancestry to a single ancient mother.

actually ur question should read, "is incest WRONG" instead of "is ICNEST wrong"

so, since you have started the argument, i just wanted to ask you, when u ask is incest "wrong" what is "wrong" in ur point of view.

otherwise i would assume, that the point of ur topic starting is just to create sensatin, and not discuss the issue :D

Wrong in that society does not accept incestuous relationships although society is borne out of incest:D....and I am not talking about distant incest...I am talking about incestuous relations between people who are "blood related"...also refer to some links regarding incest in this thread and enlighten yourself:D

I don't create sensation....I just give food for thought:D

[Polite Ghost]

Ok.
first let me get the enlightenment part aside. before replying to the topic, i DID read the thread completely. and all the links too. they are "informative", yes. but not "enlightening" ~smile~

secondly, what is the point of this discussion?

let us say, at the end of the discussion we decide that afterall, social taboos are wrong, and incest is not bad afterall. (like someone suggested it as an answer to AIDS)
If we reach that conclusion, are we going to try and make it a socially acceptable custom....?

[dhurandhar]

Ok.
first let me get the enlightenment part aside. before replying to the topic, i DID read the thread completely. and all the links too. they are "informative", yes. but not "enlightening" ~smile~

secondly, what is the point of this discussion?

let us say, at the end of the discussion we decide that afterall, social taboos are wrong, and incest is not bad afterall. (like someone suggested it as an answer to AIDS)
If we reach that conclusion, are we going to try and make it a socially acceptable custom....?

Speaking for myself, I just try to stimulate myself by thinking otherwise:D

No, I am not out here to change society....and I don't and don't ever wish to participate in incest either:D

[Polite Ghost]

Speaking for myself, I just try to stimulate myself by thinking otherwise:D

No, I am not out here to change society....and I don't and don't ever wish to participate in incest either:D


I cant help it, but put it this way :

The discussion(s) started are in a way just a "mental masturbation" (stimulating myself :D)

i am not wasting my time and energies on them anymore :vomit:

[dhurandhar]

I cant help it, but put it this way :

The discussion(s) started are in a way just a "mental masturbation" (stimulating myself :D)

i am not wasting my time and energies on them anymore :vomit:

By your argument, all philosophical discussions are mental masturbations...because rarely does a philosophical discussion translate into meaningful practice:D

You are mentally Nirveerya (without sperm aka impotent) so you must strive to avoid reading my threads/posts....mental masturbation is for people who have excessive mental sperms:D

[Polite Ghost]

LOL cant help personal remarks, can we? There is a proverb, "shallow waters make too much of noise"

A discussion is an "intercourse", an inter-action. and FEW intercourses lead to conception. The INTENT is always important. Doing it without purpose, and doing it with a specific objective in mind, is what counts.

The least a dicussion should do is increase your perception of the subject. It should lead u to exercise your mental prowess to prove your contention, and not at calling names :D.

I was merely pointing out that i do not wish to participate in a futile exercise.

YOU, on the other hand, are welcome to your "masturbation" & cybersex(which is nothing but mutual masturbation where OTHERS participate in the masturbation along with u..)

The point is not being Nirveerya OR "Kleeb" (sterile or impotent. look them up please, a big, and very interesting diff exists, they are NOT the same). The point is USING the Veerya to actually PRODUCE something. Instead of squandering it everywhere. but then again, i always say, "everyone is correct in his/her point of view"

So, Mr. Dhurandhar, please accept my good wishes, May ur "masturbation" continue in all its glory and force. And may u be blessed with ever new dreams n themes to masturbate at :D


P.S. Talking about "excessive sperm" : the semen (fluid after ejaculation) LOOKS the same (like your "philosophical discussion"), AND is completely without sperm (the seed or "philosophy"), when the male has been sterilized. "He" is able to masturbate AND have intercourse tho. Ask any "nasbandiwala" and he will explain.. LOL

[dhurandhar]

LOL cant help personal remarks, can we? There is a proverb, "shallow waters make too much of noise"

A discussion is an "intercourse", an inter-action. and FEW intercourses lead to conception. The INTENT is always important. Doing it without purpose, and doing it with a specific objective in mind, is what counts.

The least a dicussion should do is increase your perception of the subject. It should lead u to exercise your mental prowess to prove your contention, and not at calling names :D.

I was merely pointing out that i do not wish to participate in a futile exercise.

YOU, on the other hand, are welcome to your "masturbation" & cybersex(which is nothing but mutual masturbation where OTHERS participate in the masturbation along with u..)

The point is not being Nirveerya OR "Kleeb" (sterile or impotent. look them up please, a big, and very interesting diff exists, they are NOT the same). The point is USING the Veerya to actually PRODUCE something. Instead of squandering it everywhere. but then again, i always say, "everyone is correct in his/her point of view"

So, Mr. Dhurandhar, please accept my good wishes, May ur "masturbation" continue in all its glory and force. And may u be blessed with ever new dreams n themes to masturbate at :D


P.S. Talking about "excessive sperm" : the semen (fluid after ejaculation) LOOKS the same (like your "philosophical discussion"), AND is completely without sperm (the seed or "philosophy"), when the male has been sterilized. "He" is able to masturbate AND have intercourse tho. Ask any "nasbandiwala" and he will explain.. LOL

YOU started noise by making the remark of "mental masturbation". So in effect YOU started the mud-slinging...so when the mud hits your clothes...you shouldn't wail:D

Its so much fun to whip you:D

Now some more whipping...

Veerya means fluid containing sperms...and closely associated and related is the term Veer meaning Hero:D. So Nirveerya effectively means without sperms.

Note that all Brahmacharya related stuff refers to Veerya indicating sperm...because sperm is considered a live organism and therefore its conservation is suggested. There would be no point in conserving the semen without sperms.:D

As for vasectomy that you are referring to, the guy is not Nirveerya...his balls still produce sperms...it is just that sperms are blocked into entering the "mainstream":D

So I have to be a bit more accurate and suggest that you are Mentally Castrated....or a Eunuch "up there":D.....or in more polite term for a polite ghost...."upper floor" is vacant and available for rent:D

[Polite Ghost]

lmao.
be happy in ur little pond, you philosopher...
and lets hope some day u grow up and get a bit more matured.

u cant and have not "whipped" me, btw. it takes much more than a loudmouth to do that.

so till the time u grow up,
bye, mr. dhurandhar

[dhurandhar]

lmao.
be happy in ur little pond, you philosopher...
and lets hope some day u grow up and get a bit more matured.

u cant and have not "whipped" me, btw. it takes much more than a loudmouth to do that.

so till the time u grow up,
bye, mr. dhurandhar

I am happy in my little pond....wherefrom I get a view of clean sky and a proper perspective of things...as opposed to you being in a well and having a narrow vision of things:D

You remind me of the saying that goes like, " Mullah fell but kept his legs in the air and claimed that he has not fallen yet because his legs are off the ground":D

how does my rubbing salt innto your whip rashes feel?:D