Gay Incest.

I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.)

Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not?

Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you?

Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge. 

So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic.

What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously! 

Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’

The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics.

As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry.

At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say. 

Why not!

Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:53am:


You're conflating two separate issues longy (incest and age of consent). The age of consent issue is not one that is unique to incest, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:26pm:


just picked this up..  YOU are conflating the two issues by stating it must be adults only, thus excluding consensual incestual relationships under the artificially chosen age of 18.

Longy why would you think that pointing out that its a "millenia old taboo" mean anything relevant here? There are lots of stupid and very old laws that we have only recently began to realise were stupid - like banning homosexuality.

Stop complicating my point - its very simple:

- children need protection, and the state should step in if they can't get that protection from their family

- when people are no longer in need of said protection (on account of them being adults), then they should be able to consent with each other to do whatever depraved acts they choose - free from state intervention. And it can be anything - hetero sex, gay sex, incest, gay incest, group sex etc etc. Its not that I approve of it - I don't, but its not the role of the state to stop them unless there are victims involved.