Non approved by society consenting adult relationships

[Man4manplay]

One of the first guys that I ever had sex was my cousin, we are the same age we were both in high school, it was our first time when we started and 20 something years later we still hook up from time to time. I know having sex with cousins for many  gay guys is  "normal" .   Last week my Best friend told me that he and his brother had a relationship.  they decided about 10 years ago to stop it, his brother  moved out of state with a new job, but every time they saw each other like xmas they could stop it, so his brother returned to live with him last year.  At first he told me his brother was moving in until he found a job and a place, but  he has a job now and hasn't move out. They are both mid 30, and it was shocking for me but when he told me the story  it was very similar to my cousin and I growing up.  Of course no one suspect cause they are brothers, but he wanted to open up to me , cause he doesn't want to hide it from his close friends anymore.  I told him, you are both adults, is fine I didn't want to judge him or him feel guilty. I remember stories about  similar relationships from other friends like fucking with Uncles, or best friend husband or even best friend son, or boss, and even real dad and sons. My topic is open to debate is ok if 2 consenting adults that are either brothers, father and son, uncle and nephew, boss and employee, husband of best friend or of a friend, an in law ,  son of a friend, etc( any other complicated relationship) to have sex ( talking about consenting adults not abuse of power  or anything else)  ? where is the line if any? Have you ever done it or feel attracted to someone society  might not approve 

[tallslenderguy]

i think it's awesome any time someone finds love and connection. i came out of a very conservative religious background, where i think most of these types of negative rules and attitudes come from, and in many cases became the 'social norm.'  When i stepped away from my religious beliefs, it wasn't just rebellion, it was a long process of looking, examine, questioning. What i personally came to was i could discern no 'God" who had made all these rules, but just a bunch of people saying "God" had made these rules. And there's all sorts of holes in their sources. For instance, christianity draws from the bible as an authoritative source.  Christianity is a long time source for [banned word] re incest, yet the bible is full of stories of family members marrying family. The story of creation is supposedly God created just Adam and Eve, who had kids... but where did everyone else come from lol. If there was only Adam and Eve to start out, then incest would have had to be the rule 'in the beginning.'  Once i left religion, i pretty much lost a lot of my [banned word] boundaries.  Basically, i live by a code of do no harm. 

Religion aside, one of the (major i think) challenges of relationship is compatibility, if you have that with someone you have lived with most of your life, what is the rationale for disregarding that to follow a social norm?  The only scientific reason i can see against incest would be the DNA issues, but two guys are not reproducing as a result of sex, so that isn't a factor.

As you describe it, i see no "line."

[drscorpio]

There are valid reasons for the incest [banned word] for people who plan to have children together (although even those are somewhat overblown - it takes multiple generations of inbreed for most genetic disorders to show up). I don't see how they apply to two gay brothers though. 

[Cutedelicategay]

The society still draws its morality and values from religious beliefs. While religions defines union between man and woman for procreation there are numerous gay characters in various religious texts. Nevertheless, religious beliefs draws a line for sexual relation between same bloodline. Loving a blood relative is different than having sex. There are numerous reasons behind this thought process which I don't want to get into right now.

Many ethnicities marry consangvenously, however Science has proved that their children are very likely to suffer from genetic disorders.

Hence incest (banned word) is more of a gay fantasy and to some extent porn fantasy. To the question about drawing a line, this is crossing the line. Tomorrow someone will come up with an idea what's wrong in having sex with a pet dog. Afterall the dog is a pet and taken care for and loved. 

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, Man4manplay said:

My topic is open to debate is ok if 2 consenting adults that are either brothers, father and son, uncle and nephew, boss and employee, husband of best friend or of a friend, an in law ,  son of a friend, etc( any other complicated relationship) to have sex ( talking about consenting adults not abuse of power  or anything else)  ? where is the line if any? Have you ever done it or feel attracted to someone society  might not approve 

The one in this list I have trouble with, from a consent perspective, is "boss and employee". It's possible, yes, to have such a situation if both parties truly are eager AND there aren't other employees similarly situated to either of the couple. After all, there are husband-and-wife teams who run family businesses. But when A is dependent on B for his livelihood, can he really give full consent without any sense of coercion, knowing that there's a possibility of a job loss or bad reviews or whatever if he turns the boss down, or worse, dates and then breaks up? And if there are other employees: what happens with both A and B are expected to do particular work, but A is sleeping with the boss? If A gets shown any favoritism, B's going to resent it, If there are people above the boss, they're going to hear about it. It's a huge minefield - not necessarily for the tah-boo factor, for the fair employment factor.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

The story of creation is supposedly God created just Adam and Eve, who had kids... but where did everyone else come from lol. If there was only Adam and Eve to start out, then incest would have had to be the rule 'in the beginning.' 

Undoubtedly, yes, though it's fair to remember that the Christian Bible mentions at least three offspring of Adam and Eve (Cain, Abel, and Seth), and Adam is noted as siring additional children (because it's the patriarchy, Eve isn't mentioned after that initial wave).

That said, the bible never says anything about everyone in the world being descended from Adam and Eve; the people who are meant to read the Old Testament (aka the Jewish people) may be, but the book could be silent about God creating other people elsewhere/later  (for instance, for Cain to procreate with, away from the line established in the OT). All those other non-Jewish tribes had to come from somewhere. So it's *possible* one or more females from subsequent creations were introduced to the line founded by Adam and Eve (ie Seth or his other siblings).

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

Undoubtedly, yes, though it's fair to remember that the Christian Bible mentions at least three offspring of Adam and Eve (Cain, Abel, and Seth), and Adam is noted as siring additional children (because it's the patriarchy, Eve isn't mentioned after that initial wave).

That said, the bible never says anything about everyone in the world being descended from Adam and Eve; the people who are meant to read the Old Testament (aka the Jewish people) may be, but the book could be silent about God creating other people elsewhere/later  (for instance, for Cain to procreate with, away from the line established in the OT). All those other non-Jewish tribes had to come from somewhere. So it's *possible* one or more females from subsequent creations were introduced to the line founded by Adam and Eve (ie Seth or his other siblings).

Well, there was a do over after the flood, and the Jewish people (decendents of Shem, son of Noah)  didn't arive till later when Abraham purportedly left Ur of Chaldea. It's pretty interesting to compare the "Law of Moses" to the Code of Hammurabi that predated it by about 300 years. Some argue Moses copied it.  The notion that God created other people would kinda throw a monkey wrench into Christianity though, either that or the additionally created people would also have to have 'fallen' by eating from the "tree of life" and in order for all to have been born into "sin."  

[Guest takingdeepanal]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

Undoubtedly, yes, though it's fair to remember that the Christian Bible mentions at least three offspring of Adam and Eve (Cain, Abel, and Seth), and Adam is noted as siring additional children (because it's the patriarchy, Eve isn't mentioned after that initial wave).

That said, the bible never says anything about everyone in the world being descended from Adam and Eve; the people who are meant to read the Old Testament (aka the Jewish people) may be, but the book could be silent about God creating other people elsewhere/later  (for instance, for Cain to procreate with, away from the line established in the OT). All those other non-Jewish tribes had to come from somewhere. So it's *possible* one or more females from subsequent creations were introduced to the line founded by Adam and Eve (ie Seth or his other siblings).

Or Lilith

[manux32ccs]

I will tell you beforehand that I do not share incest (and that does not mean that I do not wish to discuss the issue). Regarding what you state, I think that everything in life must have limits or codes to respect, certainly 90% of those of us who are homosexual or bisexual start with a relative, I started with a cousin at 10 years of age but we are both the same age (and to date we still have encounters, although I do not like it because he is a heterosexual married man), I have also had partners and friends who began their SEXUAL life (I reaffirm the word because I will present an idea later) with their parents , uncles, brothers or cousins. Here I go to the subject, in most of those sexual experiences they were when they were minors and their relatives were adults, and they were not forced but there was concentration, so can we talk about child abuse? In that case, yes, because adults must have a criterion of respect for minors (even if they are 15 or 17 years old, that is indifferent), but having said this, let's not have it as a [banned word] to say that the majority here enjoyed sex in the middle of adolescence, and that It is not in my opinion to promote it but rather to make visible that incest has existed since before as now. It is up to you to say if it is a sin within the religious sphere, but socially it seems to me that it is a rather difficult limit to defend at this time.

[chipygmalion80]

On 8/14/2020 at 10:37 AM, Man4manplay said:

My topic is open to debate is ok if 2 consenting adults that are either brothers, father and son, uncle and nephew, boss and employee, husband of best friend or of a friend, an in law ,  son of a friend, etc( any other complicated relationship) to have sex ( talking about consenting adults not abuse of power  or anything else)  ? where is the line if any? Have you ever done it or feel attracted to someone society  might not approve 

Society has always debated this topic.

King Tut's parents were brother-sister, and now lots of studys say the Egyptian royal in-breeding caused birth defects.  If you believe Claudius and other Roman historians, supposedly Caligula (3rd Emporer of Rome) fucked around with his sisters, but that may have been the rumor-mill trying to discredit folks.  The ruling houses of Europe are a bunch of in-breds -- cousins marrying cousins.  Something about "pure" bloodlines.

But your question is brother-brother or homo/bi?  hmmm.  I'd be curious to hear if your friend's story happens more than we know...

 

[ErosWired]

Never mind religion/mythology. Making decisions about whether it is acceptable to have intimate relationships with certain classes of people on the basis of the pool of fucking candidates in Eden, or in the decidedly soggy world after the Ark ran aground, really doesn't touch on any of the relevant matters.

Neither, of course, in this case, does the question of biological hazard in regard to genetic abnormality resulting from reproduction within limited genetic diversity. But science does inform the discussion. While I am not a sociologist, I've done enough reading in that, anthropology, psychology and other disciplines to think that the following is not wholly off-base.

What happens when human beings have sexual relations with one another? A fairly well-established body of scientific observation demonstrates that chemical changes occur in the body and brain that promote bonding between individuals. This bonding is a powerful emotional (limbic) response that creates a reinforced connection between two individuals that influences other behaviors toward mutual ends, exclusive of others. That is to say, we feel toward our lovers in a biologically compelling way that we do not feel toward our friends, or even our family. We can't help it - it's chemistry, not mythology. This connection is flattened, in that it's 1-to-1, one heart to one heart, even if there is a dominant/submissive power dynamic at play - it levels the two persons involved as two equally invested parts of a single whole.

Now, let's apply this broadly to the OP's question. Why are some types of intimate relationships "non approved" by society? Society has come to reject certain types of intimate joinings because the nature of sexual/emotional bonding is deleterious to certain types of relationships. As pointed out above, there is an inherent conflict between you try to insert a pair-bond into a stratified hierarchical power structure, such as when a boss and his employee have a relationship. The chemistry makes it extremely difficult for the two to maintain the vertical separation necessary for the hierarchy to function, and those within the hierarchy but outside the relationship cannot fail to observe the dysfunction.

Incest isn't simply a question of dicey genetics. 

Incest isn't simply a question of dicey genetics. Family structures provide multiple types of connection needed for the development and maintenance of healthy psychological relationships both inside and outside the genetic group. God knows families are often dysfunctional, but the core function of the family is support of the individual as he grows outward into the world, throughout his life. Pair-bonding with family members draws the individual inward, and makes the support feed upon itself. It no longer functions as intended. The healthy psychological benefits gained from having relatives whose experience one can observe with a common understanding but also at a distance are lost if the two men essentially bond into one. (I am somewhat skeptical of @manux32ccs' claim that 90% of gay and bi males start with a relative, but if there are studies that support that statistic I would be interested to see them.)

Any relationship that involves a Duty of Care of one person for another (for instance, teacher to student, therapist to patient) is incompatible with sexual pair-bonding because the strength of the limbic influence over the person who must exercise the care has the potential to override the duty and cause the person to act in ways incompatible with the best interests of the person in his care.

So the question of whether consenting adults should feel free to pair-bond with men of 'non approved' types is not simply one of 'should we be free to love'. The possible negative/unhealthy results have nothing to do with moral snootitude. They are predicable outcomes based on what we know about what happens to body chemistry when we fuck.

The word everyone (including @drscorpio) keeps trying to use in this thread that gets snagged by the '[banned word]' filter is a word from a Proto-Oceanic (Pacific Islands family of languages) root, and meaning 'forbidden use or contact because of what are held to be dangerous supernatural powers'. There's nothing supernatural about them, but most of these prohibitions derive from a time in human society before there was such a thing as science. They could observe when things went badly, though; societies have forbidden practices for reasons, almost always quite practical and commonsensical, even if those reasons have been lost in time or obscured by people trying to push an agenda.

It's kind of amusing that in Tonga, in modern usage the 'banned word' means "sacred". Don't fall all over yourselves using that to justify fucking your brother. Or moving to Tonga, for that matter.

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, chipygmalion80 said:

The ruling houses of Europe are a bunch of in-breds -- cousins marrying cousins.  Something about "pure" bloodlines.

Only to a degree. First cousin marriages in European royalty weren't all that common. Second cousins, yes, more common. And of course, after generations of cross-marrying, many European royals could trace a relationship to another royal through multiple bloodlines.

For instance, the Tsarevich Alexei, the only son of the last Tsar of Russia, was related in several ways to George VI, Queen Elizabeth's father (they were of the same generation). Both were great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria (George through his father George V and grandfather Edward VIII; Alexei through his mother Alexandra and grandmother Princess Alice). They were also both great-grandchildren of King Christian IX of Denmark, whose daughter Dagmar married Nicholas's father Alexander III and whose daughter Alexandra married Edward VIII. Christian IX also had a son, George, who became King of Greece and married the daughter of Tsar Alexander II; their son Andrew married Princess Alice of Battenberg, one of Victoria's great-granddaughters, and they were parents to Prince Philip, who is Queen Elizabeth's husband. So their children can trace roots back in the English, Danish, and Russian royal families, as well as the German line through which Victoria herself descended. And many of those lines go back, via different routes, to the same people.

But that's basically a pre-WWI phenomenon. So many royal families were deposed and stripped of their status in the aftermath of the Great War that most royal houses started allowing children to marry commoners - mostly noble commoners, but commoners nonetheless. Elizabeth's mother (the one we knew as Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother) was the first commoner (the daughter of an earl) to marry directly into the line of succession. Philip was born a prince of Greece, but that royal family had been deposed after WWI as well (he was made a prince of Great Britain immediately prior to his marriage to Elizabeth. Diana was a commoner (the daughter of an earl) when she married Prince Charles, and since then, British royal spouses have basically been just plain commoners without even noble backgrounds. It's largely the same for the handful of other royal houses of Europe, most of whom are descendants of Victoria's many daughters being married into those other families. By now, those families are very, very genetically diverse.