Sexual Brotherly, Sisterly Love • Non-Gaming • News and Politics • Eurogamer.net

kincaide 7 Mar 2007 10:30:33 5,067 posts
Seen 5 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

Erm ..... this is wrong, isn't it?

Tiger_Walts 7 Mar 2007 10:34:06 16,674 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

Whoops I didn't read it myself.

Becoming your biological sister's lover is bad enough but having children too?

Edited by Tiger_Walts at 10:36:11 07-03-2007

FabricatedLunatic 7 Mar 2007 10:37:04 13,125 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

I don't want to pass judgement, but it's disconcerting how alike they look. Same nose, same mouth.

/shudder.

MrTomFTW Moderator 7 Mar 2007 10:37:41 47,501 posts
Seen 2 minutes ago
Registered 18 years ago

How can it be wrong when it feels so right?

PiD 7 Mar 2007 10:38:04 3,564 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 15 years ago

Well in a moral sense its wrong but I dont think it should be a jailable offence or that they should take away their children.

Its not exactly the most horrific crime and they arent really harming anyone..

Ciaran 7 Mar 2007 10:38:40 1,070 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 20 years ago

Well, that makes me feel a bit... uneasy yeah, but I don't think the guy should be jailed for it. He had a vasectomy so no more possibly disabled children and beyond that, what a consenting couple does or doesn't do in their bedroom doesn't really bother anyone does it?

Still... doesn't feel 'right'.

Edited by Ciaran at 10:39:28 07-03-2007

Goban 7 Mar 2007 10:40:25 10,121 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 16 years ago

The article says they are genetic siblings, he was adopted out of the family and only met his sister later in life.

/skin crawls

EDIT: after Tiger_Walts edit my comments are no longer as pertinent. Still true though.

Edited by Goban at 10:42:45 07-03-2007

Pike 7 Mar 2007 10:41:46 13,459 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 18 years ago

disc wrote:
PiD: Yes not harming anyone but the kids they produce.

"People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled," said Patrick.

"Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs," Patrick said.

That's evil.

Does that mean we should make it a crime to have children if you suffer from some form of inheritable disease as well?

kincaide 7 Mar 2007 10:43:43 5,067 posts
Seen 5 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

ManicMinerUK wrote:
Sounds like a freak mistake rather than a deliberate "ah, stuff it, our kids will be mongs but we don't care".

Sorry - but LOL

kincaide 7 Mar 2007 10:45:20 5,067 posts
Seen 5 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

"The law against incest is based on very old moral principles. The law was abolished in France, it's about time it should be scrapped here in Germany as well"

Abolished in France?

Goban 7 Mar 2007 10:45:43 10,121 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 16 years ago

Having three kids could hardly be judged a freak mistake.

Selfish and morally abhorrant.

wizbob 7 Mar 2007 10:47:52 936 posts
Seen 12 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

Pike wrote:

disc wrote:
PiD: Yes not harming anyone but the kids they produce.

"People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled," said Patrick.

"Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs," Patrick said.

That's evil.

Does that mean we should make it a crime to have children if you suffer from some form of inheritable disease as well?

Obviously the differentiating factor here is that you don't choose to have an inherited disease whereas banging your sister is definitely a lifestyle choice.

Stickman 7 Mar 2007 10:49:52 29,986 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 17 years ago

She looks like Catherine Tait, so it's incredibly wrong.

Machiavel 7 Mar 2007 10:49:54 5,964 posts
Seen 22 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago

The theory on this is fascinating - sure, such inbreeding is extremely hazardous and far more likely to cripple the kids. But theory indicates that by the nature of selection, if they keep doing it enough (and their freak children, and grandchildren) eventually 'winners' will emerge purged all of the genetic crap that kills off most of the others.

Naturally(!) the disastrous consequences of the early stages acts as a complete disincentive to 'stay the genetic purification course'. But Hell, are these sad freaks or evolutionary pioneers?

PearOfAnguish 7 Mar 2007 10:49:59 7,573 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

I've heard about this before, it's not completely unknown with children who are adopted and later reunited with their parents and siblings. I think there might even have been a couple of cases where people have started relationships and later discovered they were related. It's interesting, despite never having met they can't help feeling an attraction toward each other, but because they didn't grow up together it goes beyond the love you normally have for a relative.

Edit: what Tiger Walts said. Weird stuff.

I feel sorry for those two, since they obviously love each other, and I wouldn't want to restrict their freedom, but it's irresponsible of them to have children when there's such a high chance of the offspring being disabled or seriously ill.

Edited by PearOfAnguish at 10:51:59 07-03-2007

Edited by PearOfAnguish at 10:52:55 07-03-2007

Tiger_Walts 7 Mar 2007 10:50:56 16,674 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

ManicMinerUK wrote:
its more common than you might think in siblings who only meet later in life. They call it "genetic sexual attraction" I think.

Studies have shown that people are more attracted to people who have facial geometry similar to their own. So it doesn't surprise me that siblings who first meet as adults find each other... tempting.

Aretak 7 Mar 2007 10:51:45 10,391 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

I honestly don't have a problem with incest in general... if two people love each other and want to be together (and are both old enough to make that decision), that's fine in my eyes. Having children though is just wrong, and the facts about the kids these two have had only serves to illustrate that point.

kincaide 7 Mar 2007 10:52:58 5,067 posts
Seen 5 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

Is it true that incest produces more genetic defects in children, or is that "fact" another one of those urban myths?

Aretak 7 Mar 2007 10:54:23 10,391 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

kincaide wrote:
Is it true that incest produces more genetic defects in children, or is that "fact" another one of those urban myths?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression

PearOfAnguish 7 Mar 2007 10:54:47 7,573 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

From the article:

"Medical research has shown that there is a higher risk of genetic abnormalities when close relatives have a child together. When siblings have children, there is a 50% chance that the child will be disabled," he said.

nickthegun 7 Mar 2007 10:56:45 87,711 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago

disc wrote:
PiD: Yes not harming anyone but the kids they produce.

"People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled," said Patrick.

"Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs," Patrick said.

That's evil.

I was just about to post that. Its the quote of the article, for me.

'My Kids arent disabled, they just have epilepsy, learning difficulties and one was born 2 months early. You can use statistics to prove anything'.

Sounds like their parents were brother and sister, to be honest.

*desperately trying to find a picture of Billy-Bob from Preacher, but failing*

DaisyD 7 Mar 2007 10:57:26 11,816 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

It is very wrong. Plus she's only 22 and they've been together 6 years which means she was 16 when they got together. I would not be suuprised that she had a little crush on her newly discovered older brother and things got carried away. He was probably her 1st love and amongst all her confused teenage feelings, never saw it as wrong at that age. Still very very wrong though.

UncleLou Moderator 7 Mar 2007 10:59:45 40,723 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 20 years ago

I have a few mates who are aristocrats, and they all have some sort of slight "defects" which are said to come from their ancestors marrying not directly their sisters and brothers, but at least choosing their partners from a very limited pool of possible partners for centuries. Always a reason for a joke or two.

As for the couple - I am not sure what to think. Of course it feels very wrong, but there are too many ethical questions. Would it be better if they had no children? Are we really in a position to say these children would be better off if they had never been born?

Pike 7 Mar 2007 10:59:53 13,459 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 18 years ago

wizbob wrote:
Obviously the differentiating factor here is that you don't choose to have an inherited disease whereas banging your sister is definitely a lifestyle choice.

Obviously that isn't a differentiating factor at all. A person who is aware that they carry a serious genetic disease still has a choice about wether he wants to procreate or not.

I mean sure banging a sibling scores high on the gross out meter, however it is debatable wheter the risk of producung disabled children is reason enough to criminalise it.

Genji 7 Mar 2007 11:05:32 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

Pfft, as if your country doesn't have the most inbred royal family in world history.

Hyuk.

DaisyD 7 Mar 2007 11:13:58 11,816 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

I once met a couple who had previously lived together as step brother and sister until their parents split up, then met again a few years later and became a couple. That seemed morally wrong to me too. It is also now classed as incest in the UK since the sex offences laws a few years back, (but only where step siblings were bought up together).

Deleted user 7 March 2007 11:14:00

It's just as irresponsible (IMO) as people that, despite having a heriditary, serious problem(s) having kids.

My next door neighbours are both carriers of cystic fibrosis. But that didn't stop them having three kids, all of whom have the illness.

None of which will live beyond 30.

PearOfAnguish 7 Mar 2007 11:14:33 7,573 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

They knew what could happen. If they want to sleep with each other in the privacy of their home, let them, but when your wrong love results in children you can no longer claim you're not hurting anyone.