When is it okay to consider a relationship disgusting

Rape definitely…

 

Not Disgusting-----straights and LGBTQ+ community

-------------------------------------
Disgusting------ bestiality, pedophilia, incest, rape,

 

How about never? Fucking hell, as long as it's a legal union between two consenting adults no one besides the people involved in the relationship have any fucking say on anything that happens in that relationship (or the relationship itself).

Stop internalizing their homophobia. Also, I don't see why you should concern yourself with other people's relationships unless they are asking for your judgement.

 

Sex in itself is "disgusting" and unexplainable. What I mean by this is their is no real reason why one is attracted to what their attracted to. Theirs no common sense to sex. A person acts on desire, but not all desires are good nor healthy. So it's a persons job to know when he/she may cross the line and consider seeking for help.

---------- Post added 30th Nov 2014 at 05:35 PM ----------

Rawrzilla did I say something wrong?
Please let me know. I'm genuinely asking. Please enlighten me.

 

Well generally speaking any relationship that isn't between two girls is disgusting. :rolle: :lol:

 

As long as it's consensual and no one's getting hurt in ways they dont like, idgaf.

It's no one else's business.

 

I think incest, pedophilia, and beastiality is where the line should be drawn. I don't see anything inherently wrong with polygamous relationships themselves (to each their own), although it does become an issue when debating if people in polygamous relationships should have kids - some people say the kids will suffer if raised in a polygamous household. But that doesn't make the polygamous relationship itself necessarily bad.

There are strong biological reasons against the other three though.

1) pedophilia: although pedophilia may not 'directly' harm the adult in the situation, it almost always has severe, damaging effects on the child involved. This is why normal, healthy adults should not feel attracted to children, because evolutionary-wise, prepubescent children are not old enough to have sex, and not old enough to make choices regarding relationships. If a child is put in a sexual relationship with an adult too early, they will be strongly, emotionally affected in a negative way, and will likely grow up to be less functional members of society (and thus, these behaviors serve as impediments to the species as a whole: at least in more emotionally advanced species). This is why I think "true" pedophilia really only applies to people attracted to children. If you have, say, a 40 year old man who sleeps with a very willing, mature looking 16 year old girl, it's extremely creepy. But I don't think it's true pedophilia (just kind of gross). The 16 year old girl also won't suffer the same emotional trauma as a 6 year old, assuming she was willing.

2) Beastiality: once again, nature steps in and psychologically discourages us from being attracted to animals for two reasons. One, because we can't breed with animals, and most of the time you can't even have functional sex with a lot of animal species. Two, human beings are bonding creatures. We desire a level of emotional intimacy that only another human can provide, so being attracted to say, a dog, is completely counterproductive to what we need biologically.

3) Incest: I actually saw an interesting study a long time ago talking about how there's a psychological phenomenon that explains why human beings should not be attracted to their siblings. Apparently, anyone whom a child is exposed to on a very frequent, close-contact basis during a crucial developmental period (I think it's young childhood to somewhere in your teen years) should not be a potential sexual/romantic candidate. If you live in close proximity to someone during this crucial developmental period, you should not feel attracted to them. This is why (although extremely rare) you see stories of siblings separated at birth who meet later in life, unaware of their familial relationship, and fall in love. This mechanism was put in place for obvious reasons: because incestuous relationships run an extremely high risk of birth defects. Incest between parents and children is also discouraged because in nature, in order for a parent to effectively care for their child, romantic and sexual feelings cannot come into the mix and complicate things. It's the whole science behind maternal and paternal instinct.

So there you have it. I think any consensual relationship between human adults who are not closely related to each other is generally fine.

 

Is it when you don't understand or can't see the attraction? Not my business

Is it when it involves unsafe sex? This may be stupid, but it's not my business

Is it when there is no two way mutual consent (which is rape)? Evil, disgusting, whatever you want to call it.

Is it when it involves incest? Assuming consent, it isn't really my business. There may be issues, particularly when an age gap is involved, but I won't condemn it on principle.

Is it when it involves pedophilia? Evil, disgusting, whatever you call it.

Is it when it involves bestiality? Once again.

See a trend? So long as consent exists, it isn't my problem.

---------- Post added 30th Nov 2014 at 11:14 PM ----------

Is it when you don't understand or can't see the attraction? Not my business

Is it when it involves unsafe sex? This may be stupid, but it's not my business

Is it when there is no two way mutual consent (which is rape)? Evil, disgusting, whatever you want to call it.

Is it when it involves incest? Assuming consent, it isn't really my business. There may be issues, particularly when an age gap is involved, but I won't condemn it on principle.

Is it when it involves pedophilia? Evil, disgusting, whatever you call it.

Is it when it involves bestiality? Once again.

See a trend? So long as consent exists, it isn't my problem.

 

Never unless It's non-consensual

 

Is it when you don't understand or can't see the attraction?
Not really, just because I cant see it doesnt mean they dont.

Is it when it involves unsafe sex?
How do you expect to conceive a child with protected sex?

Is it when there is no two way mutual consent (which is rape)?
This is one which is disgusting.

Is it when it involves incest?
If both partners consent, then its just like any other relationship.

Is it when it involves pedophilia?
Yes, this is disgusting.

Is it when it involves bestiality?
Yes because an animal cannot consent.

What do you think?
I made my points quite clear in the answers.

 

The place where I draw the line is when there isn't consent between all parties involved, it involves a pre-pubescent child (have a similar stance on pedophilia as Anonymous12347), or any form of bestiality. With anything else, I shouldn't have the right to judge.

 

I'd say no. That's okay.

Well that's bad, but not what I'd call disgusting...

Yes.

No.

I have a good friend who's a pedophile, but he's told me he doesn't want to harm children so he suppresses his desires. Good thing he likes girls his own age too! I have nothing against pedophiles themselves, but I don't think sex with children is okay.

Yeah, as long as the animal can't consent it's rape.

 

Oh no no no Treevine, I was adressing the OP and answering the titular question. I hadn't even read your post when I sent mine hehehe

 

I have no idea why everyone seems to be ok with incest. Obviously what people do behind closed doors is none of my business, and it isn't going to stop. But to say pedophilia goes against nature and is "disgusting" yet incest is not? That seems a little strange.

Incestual relationships lead to the breakdown of the family unit. And I'm not talking about "one mom, one dad" - I'm talking about the solace that comes with certain inborn, platonic relationships in your life. The loving, maternal and paternal relationships mothers and fathers have with their children. The fact that your siblings are like close friends, with the added understanding of a shared family environment.

When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of "ex-gay" ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.

Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family. That's what incest does.

Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn't. If the law bans gay sex, a lesbian can't have a sex life. But if you're hot for your sister, and the law says you can't sleep with her, you have billions of other options. Get out of your house, for God's sake. You'll find somebody to love without incinerating your family. I also think it's fair to say that it would be psychologically traumatic for parents to see two children they raised 'getting it on'. It would be devastating. I don't think a parent will ever feel comfortable with something like that. It just defies maternal and paternal instinct.

When someone falls in love with someone outside of their family, no family is destroyed. In fact, a new family is created. But relationships within close families do destroy the family unit. It takes away the certain solid, safe, comforting basis parent-child and sibling-child relationships are supposed to come with. Relationships are full of drama - cheating, jealousy, losing spark in the bedroom, wandering eyes, getting bored of each other, keeping the romance alive. It's the reason so many relationships and marriages end (and let's be honest, your relationship with an ex is different after you two have broken up, it doesn't go back to the way it was before you got together). You can't bring that into a family and expect the family to be stable.

Not to mention that you only get one family (in most cases). Your family isn't something you can just recycle at will, get a new one as you please. Friendships come and go, relationships fail, but your family is supposed to be the base unit you can always come back to. It's something special.

And sibling incest does result in higher rates of birth defects. It's common knowledge. It's science.

- - - - - - - - - -

Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions.

Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:

Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
Increased genetic disorders
Fluctuating facial asymmetry
Lower birth rate
Higher infant mortality
Depression on growth rate (height, weight and body mass index)
Smaller adult size
Loss of immune system function

- - - - - - - - -

Another study:

When we mate with someone with a completely different gene pool, our chance of passing on recessive genes is only 50 percent. Many times, those genes remain dormant, but when people who share a large number of genes breed, the chance of passing on conditions known as autosomal recessive disorders—conditions that are inherited through recessive genes, including cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and albinism—increases significantly.

Other side effects of inbreeding include the increased risk of infertility, birth defects like cleft palates, heart conditions, facial asymmetry, low birth weight, slow growth rate, and neonatal mortality. One study found that 40 percent of children whose parents were first-degree relatives were born with autosomal recessive disorders, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual deficits. According to the study, when first-degree relatives mate, the risk of their child suffering from an early death, serious birth defect, or mental disability increases to almost 50 percent

- - - - - - - -

It's about genetic variation. Random breeding happens for a reason.

People born with hereditary diseases were born with that bad luck. They should be able to try having kids, albeit with caution and supervision by a genetic counselor, because they didn't ask to be born with a hereditary disease. However, incest is a choice. To say someone can be "family-sexual" is bogus. I don't think there's anyone out there who only feels sexual attraction to their siblings. If you want kids, have kids with someone else. Don't put yourself at needless risk in an incredibly small mating pool.

And it is a slippery slope. Just as interracial marriage was a slippery slope (in a good way) to homosexual marriage, you can't expect to legalize some forms of incest and not have others follow. Are we going to make it acceptable to have gay incestual relationships but not straight ones between brothers and sisters? Or what about if one brother gets a vasectomy, or the sister is infertile? And what if parents and kids want to join in? Should menopause be factored in? Uncles and nieces, nephews and aunts? It would be the equivalent of saying "ok, we'll allow gay marriage, but only between a bisexual and a lesbian, not two bisexuals, and only two gay men, no pansexuals, and we're iffy about those MtF transgenders and genderqueer folks" - that sounds ridiculous. Of course all forms of LGBT+ relationships are going to be legalized in the same vein of gay and lesbian marriages, and justly so.

My argument about young child exposure also still stands. According to evolutionary psychologists, just observing your mother care for another baby is a cue that that other child is a sibling and discourages sexual attraction. If you happen to be the youngest, being raised with other children by the same set of parents has the same effect. This may explain why relationships with adopted family members are still considered taboo even though they don’t share the same genes.

Even plants avoid incest! To prevent incest, some plants, such as petunias and tobacco plants, have evolved to develop what scientists have dubbed the “self-incompatibility” strategy. As a part of this strategy, some plants can identify their own pollen once it has entered the female reproductive organ (called the “pistil”) and destroy it before fertilization occurs using a toxin called S-RNase. Though the S-RNase is produced even when genetically diverse pollen has entered the pistil, the plant prevents the destruction of viable pollen by withholding the toxin until it has identified the pollen as either compatible or incompatible.

I was just reading a new study the other day suggesting that homosexuality occurs in nature as a means of bonding with others - that the same types of inborn cues/natural inclinations that allow people of the same sex to bond in platonic ways are slightly varied/mixed-up in homosexual individuals, but the positive influence of these mechanisms still stands. Here's the study for anyone interested: Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond, Scientists Say

So yes. I do think incest is wrong and harmful.

 

Nope. I mean, stuff change, nothing is set in stone. Being too quick to dismiss a relationship based on these two merits, it's not something i'd personally be okay with, although i see why most would.

Nope. A ton of people have unprotected sex these days, why... is beyond me, but still, not that big of a deal if both parties are well informed of the risks and have tested themselves.

I personally am against it... but am well informed to know that there are some... in rare cases, who actually get off on this stuff. So maybe in those situation, maybe? But in almost all cases, it's not justified.

Incest... Nope. I have this friend from <someplace> who was hitting on me hard, and is really cute too! But... told me he can't be with me because... get this. He wants to have a child with his cousin, only because she is pretty enough, so he can have a pretty child. Okay, i get the whole "family is important" shit and the pressure from his parents... but seriously?!

It's not okay, but i do know (and have known in the past) a person who fits this description, and... yeah... it's not okay. I mean, as long as they don't act out on it, but then it's BL territory, which i have to admit, i fail to comprehend. So... just, no... against it.

...i won't even... no. I mean, i get that people are weird, but... no this, no.

I'm thinking that this thread is weird.

 

To answer your questions...
-Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong or gross (e.g. BDSM is something I don't see the appeal of, but it's not unhealthy unless it becomes unsafe).
-I don't approve of unsafe sex, but "disgusting" isn't the right word for it.
-Rape is immoral no matter who is involved.
-Incest is harmful because it can cause a lot of birth defects.
-Pedo sex is sick and wrong. However, if someone is attracted to kids but doesn't harm any children, then it's fine.
-Bestiality is even worse than pedophilia!

 

When it involves any form of abuse, including the exploitation of an innocent "yes" (or the lack of a "no" taken for the affirmative) said from a position of misunderstanding of the consequences that doesn't amount to genuine consent.

Personal "ick" does not matter; it's not your life and their right to do as they please should be respected. That includes their sexual practices and their physical looks, as long as everything is consensual.

I would say it's fine to be disgusted at a genuinely unhealthy relationship, but if you're seriously concerned, don't just screw up your nose and take the moral high-ground.

 

I won't answer any questions about when a relationship is "disgusting" because it's stupid and irrelevant.

I'm quite prepared however, to comment on when sex is ethical. Sex is ethical when the following conditions obtain, and unethical (you should die) otherwise:

1) Individuals are mentally capable in general of understanding the ramifications of what they are doing,
2) Individuals are mentally capable in the actual moment of understanding what they are doing,
3) They are both enthusiastically doing it,
4) As activities change, negotiation takes place (this doesn't have to be verbal; non-verbal cues can be understood)
5) A power difference that raises the presumption of duress or reprisal does not exist, and
6) As part of the consent negotiation, all relevant health factors have been honestly discussed and agreed upon.

Anything else is rape.

Questions of "disgust" are not interesting.

I should also mention that using physical, political or social force to prevent, punish or dissuade people from sex (remember, sex is defined above) is just as evil as rape, and in some cases even moreso. (I would argue that being imprisoned for having sex is much more evil and much more traumatic.)

Both forcing oneself sexually on another or punishing her for exercising her sexual agency are extreme kinds of sexual violence. I would happily see anyone engaged to that put to the sword.

~ Adrienne