Being wishy washy and never willing to choose a side-and claiming no one should try to- isn't being an anarchist, its being an apologist.Having a reasonable and courteous discussion with an anarchist seems impossible. I don't know why I keep wasting my time. I'm done!
(take 3)
Being wishy-washy and being tolerant are two completely different things, but you see to be blind to the distinction. I have strong opinions about things and I express them often in this forum. I'm also tolerant of other people being able to express opinions and write stories I don't like. That's not wishy-washy. It's tolerant. I'm baffled why you can't tell the difference.
What the hell is the world coming to, can't even kill a vampire anymore smh
People going 'ew?'
Incest doesn't lead to "birth defects;" those are non-genetic disorders. Incest (properly speaking, "inbreeding") leads to homozygosity (having the same gene from each parent) and, if it's a deleterious gene, then the genetic disorder will show up in the offspring.
Why use two words when 108 will do
Because to think that incest causes birth defects is wrong. 108 words isn't really enough to explain something as complex as genetic inheritance and the social nature of kinship. Why use two words when you don't have the correct meaning. The concept of 'Kachina', by the way, may be contained in one word, but it's meaning takes many more. Add 'Doll' to it and it becomes a complex history of colonization and cultural integrity.Why use two words when 108 will do
You should reconsider your full-stop. That only applies to inbreeding, not incest. Incest is a socio-cultural phenomena, not a biological one.
I'll concede that there are possibly some cultures that don't have a taboo about incest (defined as "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other," at least, that's the definition in English), but the question was about incest.
No. I agree. Incest is not about inbreeding; it's about social structure. As you said, "between people CLASSED as being too closely related." That isn't biology; that's sociology. There are English-speaking cultures that differ in their rules about what constitutes incest. In fact, even in the United States, "almost all states criminalize incest between adults. Some states also prohibit intimate relations between aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. Additionally, state laws vary regarding half- and step-relatives and adopted relatives." And in New Jersey and Rhode Island, close relatives, as long as they're adults, can have sexual relations with each other, but are not allowed to get married.
The problem is that we can't include every socio-cultural classification into one over-arching definition, for exactly that reason. Hence, the thread. Therefore, we have to go broader in terms of our definition. Forget the individual states; what is the overall consensus? If you want to bring the individual states into the discussion, how do we resolve this? I submit that similarities are ferreted out of each state's laws to settle this matter if you want to bring up the states.
"Why use two words when you don't have the correct meaning"
For story-writing, I generally indicate that the parties involved see the relationship as incestuous. That obviates the need for definition. This thread was headed "when is 'incest' NOT incest?" That's exactly what I was addressing in my posts.
So... when is it not? I didn't see your post, as I didn't have time to read the entire thread before posting, so I'm not sure what your stance is. Do you agree with me? I have no idea.
Incest is socially defined and varies. For me a story can't assume what incest is; it has to make it clear that the relationship in the story is seen as incest by the couple and those around them.
Not if you really like stuffed mushrooms. Why take Shirley Conran's notion of what's important; shouldn't you have your own?
