Good job. That b... bad person insulted me grossly and supported incest and rape in comics on the laughable claim that it's just fiction. She deserves to be banned. Next in line for being grossly offensive are Jeanne Mathison (^a piece of her is quoted above) and Minalinsky.

And BugDevil: not only you are right about how for 1x1/2 you gotta be morbid to come here and read it, but also that Happy Sugar Life is an even worse wreck than this is.

Germán Following up someone getting banned for personal attacks with going after other people is a very bad look, and I'm not inclined to put up with it. Particularly since you also mischaracterize why they were banned. Take a day off to think about it.

When you come back, drop the whole "rape and abuse" thing until such time as it becomes an issue in this actual story.

Kinda makes me wonder if Asuka's mom subconsciously knew she flicked the bean that evening. I mean how could you not pick up on that.

Probably it's true. But it's not clear was Asuka in her bed, and what she was doing in her bed before falling asleep. So, there are two possibilities why her panties are ruined... Or maybe it was from both cases?
Anyway, scene was hot...

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 9:13AM

So the implication is that Ayako realized ... something ... even as Asuka was still in middle school? Does that really make sense looking back at the first chapters, where she seemed fairly oblivious? :?

Well, we will see how those cases will be treated in the future. If a doctor thinks it's a bad idea, I certainly would agree with that assessment. You're justifying one probematic thing with a loophole in another questionable situation here. I find it a bit crass to equate caring for the future child's health to eugenics. But slippery slope argument and all that stuff....

Eugenics is controlled breeding, not necessarily genocide and gassing. Ensuring that those with "inferior" genes such as individuals with genetic defects is in fact a form of it, not a slippery slope at all. Quite literally the definition:

eu·gen·ics
noun
the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.

If it's uncomfortable it's because it does leads to a slippery slope of other shit, because people start deciding this and that is also inferior genes and then we get into really nasty territory.

Pseudo-incest does have similar psychological consequences to standard incest sometimes, sure. But on the other hand knowing that you come from that person (additionally with the genetic issues) has a profound psychological effect.

Only in the sense that the parent has even greater authority because they're more likely to have consistently been in the child's life from the start as an authority figure. Again, this has little to do with blood relation and everything to do with being in a position of authority and abusing it. Yes, a blood related parent would often be closer with the child and exercise greater authority compared to an adopted one, but correlation and not causation and all that jazz.

But HIV is transfered by straight couples too (in fact statistically more so) and lesbians have almost zero chance of ever getting it through intercourse. Therefore, it's scientifically proven that it has no profounder consequences in homosexuals.
Incest on the other hand is scientifically proven to be only detrimental. At best it creates few issues, at worst it has great ones. The inherent act itself is the problem, not some outside force like HIV.
That is the false euquivalence.

Straight couples are statistically more in danger? I have no idea what you mean by that.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics
Homosexual men make up over half of the new cases yearly. Obviously I wasn't speaking of lesbians in this case when I mention anal sex.
There is no direct benefit to homosexuality either. It's not a matter of being a benefit or a detriment, it's a matter of allowing the individual in question to freely choose who they wish to love and not using science to justify stripping rights away when there's steps that can be taken to alleviate the issues in question.

From all the reasearch I did on America in particular the statistics vary wildly, mostly because obviously consensual incest will never be reported (as it is illegal) and everything else that appears is sexual abuse and rape by family members. Many statistics are around the ballpark of 10-30 million incest victims across the country. One article in partiular mention Los Angeles as a particularily bad place. Alaska has some of the highest rape rates in the country and incest is part of that. Therefore states with higher rape rates have higher official incest rates.
Honestly, it's annoying to pin such things down, but it's undeniable that this is a big issue.

Well for starters, that isn't exactly what I was talking about, and Los Angeles/Alaska is hardly a southern state. We were talking about long term genetic effects on the supposedly "turn a blind eye to incest inbreeding backwards south" stereotype, no?

For what you speak of, it's not an unsurprising statistic if only because most rapes are perpetuated not by the spooky hooded man following you in the park, but by someone close to you, that you know. For many children, it can often end up being their family. But as I said above, the real issue here is the abuse of the position of authority. Blood related or not, the damage done is based on how much authority and influence the person in question has over the child,. and whether the perpetrator is blood related or not doesn't lessen or amplify the vileness of it. To conflate this with an incestuous relationship between two consenting adults as justification for taking away their rights is silly. I remember reading about one couple who was exasperated about this exact issue, feeling as though their mutual and consented love with his sister constantly gets compared to an uncle diddling his niece.

Funnily enough, hiding behind child victims as a means to justify the withholding of rights for consenting adults is exactly what they tried to do with homosexuals too.

What...? I didn't say that. There is still a huuuge bias against homosexuality as is, adding incest to it doesn't help. That's combining two minorities that are observed critically, so it's inherently a losing battle.

For what it's worth... incest between sisters is probably the least "problematic" option, aside from cousins.

I wish I could say that the people who I'm talking about just hate homosexuality in general, but they're 100% all for yuri but take up a crusade against the one yuri incest couple. (and are VERY vocal about it, since it's the most popular pairing in Japan) Believe me, it has nothing to do with a bias against homosexuality, they love homosexuality. It's just that they perpetually need to complain about the incest pairing and how horrible everyone who likes it is. Pleasant bunch, really.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 10:31AM

So I guess we're out of ideas? Okay then.

Hey, White Rose, this marks the second time I've seen you personally attacking BugDevil in a week. You did the very kind favour of extending the attack to another user, as well. This is in violation of rule 1. I'd suggest perusing the rules here so that you don't violate them again. In the meantime, you'll be receiving a one-day timeout.

I'd also kindly suggest, for the second time in a week, that personal issues plaguing you are not of interest to users browsing this thread to discuss yuri, and can only bring further trouble. Thank you very much for keeping that in mind, cheers.

Banning is a prerogative of those in charge of the forum, but the snarkiness and speculation about hidden psychological motives are unwarranted.

Two persons who disliked this story came here, to this thread, to write in strong terms about their dislike. White Rose disapproved of it. That's all her reason.

Does anyone understand the end of the new chapter? Why Ayako loses her appetite?

Eugenics is controlled breeding, not necessarily genocide and gassing. Ensuring that those with "inferior" genes such as individuals with genetic defects is in fact a form of it, not a slippery slope at all. Quite literally the definition:
If it's uncomfortable it's because it does leads to a slippery slope of other shit, because people start deciding this and that is also inferior genes and then we get into really nasty territory.

I was refering to my own statement here... I know that what I'm suggesting leads to slippery slope territory.
Again if we get to the designer baby future, this topic will become more relevant again.

Only in the sense that the parent has even greater authority because they're more likely to have consistently been in the child's life from the start as an authority figure. Again, this has little to do with blood relation and everything to do with being in a position of authority and abusing it. Yes, a blood related parent would often be closer with the child and exercise greater authority compared to an adopted one, but correlation and not causation and all that jazz.

Psychologically speaking the birth mother always has a greater impact than a step-mother, even if you were raised by the step-mother from the start. No matter how much one tries to deny it, there is inherently a stronger bond to the birth mother by default. And such a bond has greater repercussions in incest cases.

Straight couples are statistically more in danger? I have no idea what you mean by that.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics
Homosexual men make up over half of the new cases yearly. Obviously I wasn't speaking of lesbians in this case when I mention anal sex.
There is no direct benefit to homosexuality either. It's not a matter of being a benefit or a detriment, it's a matter of allowing the individual in question to freely choose who they wish to love and not using science to justify stripping rights away when there's steps that can be taken to alleviate the issues in question.

Not more in danger, they get it more often percentage wise worldwide. Have you ever looked at African statistics?

Who was talking about benefits? I'm saying incest has only inherent detriments. By itself, without HIV or any other outside force used as a lynchpin, incest is simply bad. Therefore your HIV analogy fails. You don't let a person self-mutilate, just because they really enjoy it. Doctors and authority figures would step in.
It's not a stretch to call incest self-harm or abuse in many cases, because that is quite literally what it is treated as legally and in medical terms. Science is on the same level of knowledge with incest and homosexuality, but only one of them has been declared harmless and acceptable.

So again: No fearmongering needed.

Well for starters, that isn't exactly what I was talking about, and Los Angeles/Alaska is hardly a southern state. We were talking about long term genetic effects on the supposedly "turn a blind eye to incest inbreeding backwards south" stereotype, no?

Oh you didnt mean I should explain America's issue with incest....

Funnily enough, hiding behind child victims as a means to justify the withholding of rights for consenting adults is exactly what they tried to do with homosexuals too.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I was telling you why it is hard to get statistics on consensual incest relationships. It's like trying to get a realistic figures on gay couples in the 50s.
However, you will find that incest is most often the non-consensual kind, while homosexuality is not. This isn't about child victims either. Sexual harrassment and rape happen across all age groups.

Well this is kinda missing the point though. Even consensual incest is not a good thing as I already elaborated in spades. At best it does little harm. And whether it's legal or not, it will happen anyway.

I wish I could say that the people who I'm talking about just hate homosexuality in general, but they're 100% all for yuri but take up a crusade against the one yuri incest couple. (and are VERY vocal about it, since it's the most popular pairing in Japan) Believe me, it has nothing to do with a bias against homosexuality, they love homosexuality. It's just that they perpetually need to complain about the incest pairing and how horrible everyone who likes it is. Pleasant bunch, really.

Uh... ok? I said incest is first and foremost an issue because of procreation. You said then homosexual incest must be accepted. I said that's not true, because in the first place homosexuality isn't widely accepted. These are two "abnormal" things and that only mulitplies people's rejection of it. Incest isn't any less gross to people just because they like homosexuality. I'm just saying that on average you will hardly find people who will support homosexual incest, because that requires getting over yourself twice instead of once.

PS: I think we're starting to reach the convergence point here. The topic's a bit overdone now. I don't fundamentally disagree with you after all, so unless you got some important things to add, we could end it here.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 11:08AM

Does anyone understand the end of the new chapter? Why Ayako loses her appetite?

Because she realizes that she was thinking of her daughter as "delicious" as her coworker mentions how her lunch looks as thus.

Edit to add: Please, folks, I understand people have Strong Feelings about things but personally I'm tired of having to scroll through entire novellas as the same three people continue to duke it out...

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 11:14AM

Psychologically speaking the birth mother always has a greater impact than a step-mother, even if you were raised by the step-mother from the start. No matter how much one tries to deny it, there is inherently a stronger bond to the birth mother by default. And such a bond has greater repercussions in incest cases.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the genetics aspect of it and everything to do with the social perception and initial proximity aspects of it. That's why it's more damaging. Example: if a child was adopted as a baby, do you think they'd be more destroyed by their birth mother that they never knew abusing them, or their adopted mother? Of course it'd be the latter. It's a matter of influence and proximity, not % of genes shared.

Not more in danger, they get it more often percentage wise worldwide. Have you ever looked at African statistics?

Their situation is completely different. Many of those people were infected through their mothers giving birth to them. And even straight transmissions have more to do with poverty and lack of education than anything. We're talking about the situation in educated and developed countries in regards to sex, because that's the entire framework for this conversation so far.

Who was talking about benefits? I'm saying incest has only inherent detriments. By itself, without HIV or any other outside force used as a lynchpin, incest is simply bad. Therefore your HIV analogy fails.

By that reasoning, it's not incest that causes problems, it's genetic disorders!
Once again, to begin with, the act of incest itself does not necessitate procreation.

Furthermore, you were the one talking about detriments, which naturally lends to a discussion about perceived benefits for allowing certain relationships from forming as opposed to their detriments. My point is that homosexual relationships could in fact and was in fact described in the same way, as a form of relationship with "only inherent detriments" in many regards as in the first place, as it lacks the direct social benefit of reproduction, again, an argument used by many of its detractors. Fascists, for example, did not hate homosexuals because they're big meanie-faces. They hated it because there's no direct benefit to the state and society they were trying to build, and their ideology is entirely based on the individual serving the state.

On the subject of HIV specifically, yes, homosexual men are far greater at risk than other populations, and many did in fact argue that it's only detrimental to allow them to be together to our greater society as it lacks the above benefit intrinsic to heterosexual relationships. And in a sense, they're not completely wrong; as I linked earlier, it's no secret that homosexual men transmit the disease at the greatest frequency. But the point is taking away their rights on the basis of this is dumb for reasons I hope I don't need to elaborate on. The same goes for incest.

And again, don't pull literal developing countries where the context of how it's transmitted and why into this because the situation there is completely different in regards to education, poverty, and even just the cause of transmission.

It's not a stretch to call incest self-harm or abuse in many cases, because that is quite literally what it is treated as legally and in medical terms. Science is on the same level of knowledge with incest and homosexuality, but only one of them has been declared harmless and acceptable.

This is hardly absolute. The social climate in regards to this was different and you don't have to go even 50 years back when many scientists "declared" the same about homosexuality, citing it as a mental illness.

Well this is kinda missing the point though. Even consensual incest is not a good thing as I already elaborated in spades. At best it does little harm. And whether it's legal or not, it will happen anyway.

I disagree. What you elaborated on is that incestuous couples should be singled out for issues present in plenty of other couples that don't receive that same prohibition. I do agree that it will happen anyway, which in that sense, is it better not to accept and educate them to mitigate risks, instead of shun and spit on them?

Uh... ok? I said incest is first and foremost an issue because of procreation. You said then homosexual incest must be accepted. I said that's not true, because in the first place homosexuality isn't widely accepted. These are two "abnormal" things and that only mulitplies people's rejection of it. Incest isn't any less gross to people just because they like homosexuality. I'm just saying that on average you will hardly find people who will support homosexual incest, because that requires getting over yourself twice instead of once.

I'm saying the people reason don't like incest has very little to do with procreation - it's a post-hoc justification, which, well, nothing you're saying here really denies that.

People hate incest regardless of whether or not procreation is possible. Incestuous homosexuals are not accepted. Incestuous sterile couples aren't given a pass. Viability has little to do with people's perceptions beyond giving them a scientific reason to justify their gut rejection of it, and even viable incestuous couples have steps that can take that make them less at risk; to begin with, they're already objectively less at risk than many couples with genetic disorder that we allow to breed in the first place.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you after all, so unless you got some important things to add, we could end it here.

On the contrary, I fundamentally disagree with you on many things. But you're welcome to end it here and I'll stop replying to whatever you post to this, if you do.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 11:52AM

The story, folks--when was the last time one of these posts was about the story?

The story, folks--when was the last time one of these posts was about the story?

Hey man, I tried. lol

The story, folks--when was the last time one of these posts was about the story?

Hey man, I tried. lol

You worked hard. Lol

Of course I meant “these mega-posts of abstract cultural commentary.”

The story, folks--when was the last time one of these posts was about the story?

Hey man, I tried. lol

You worked hard. Lol

Of course I meant “these mega-posts of abstract cultural commentary.”

How unfair. I also worked hard on my mega-posts of abstract cultural commentary, thank you very much.

The story, folks--when was the last time one of these posts was about the story?

Hey man, I tried. lol

You worked hard. Lol

Of course I meant “these mega-posts of abstract cultural commentary.”

How unfair. I also worked hard on my mega-posts of abstract cultural commentary, thank you very much.

Personally I really appreciate your mega-posts of abstract cultural commentary or MPACC for short. Good job. And BugDevil too for that matter (though I don't agree with his point of view at all).

alex whens the next ch and translation coming

Personally I really appreciate your mega-posts of abstract cultural commentary or MPACC for short. Good job. And BugDevil too for that matter (though I don't agree with his point of view at all).

To be honest, I'm slightly surprised anyone else was reading it at all. But thanks.

alex whens the next ch and translation coming

Translation, I wouldn't know, but the author stated on their fanbox that the next chapter's coming on the 28th.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:00PM

if a child was adopted as a baby, do you think they'd be more destroyed by their birth mother that they never knew abusing them, or their adopted mother? Of course it'd be the latter. It's a matter of influence and proximity, not % of genes shared.

If we had the exact same cases between birth mother and step-mother, birth mother always wins out in damage. The only explanation is that one is real incest and that has inherent psychological extra issues.

By that reasoning, it's not incest that causes problems, it's genetic disorders!

Yes. That is the main issue with it. Everything else is additional baggage.

Furthermore, you were the one talking about detriments, which naturally lends to a discussion about perceived benefits for allowing certain relationships from forming as opposed to their detriments.

No that is what you want to argue. It has nothing to do with my argument.

This is hardly absolute. The social climate in regards to this was different and you don't have to go even 50 years back when many scientists "declared" the same about homosexuality, citing it as a mental illness.

And I just literally told you modern science, which has accepted Homosexuality as normal, still considers incest bad to a certain degree. Because of facts, not ideology.

I do agree that it will happen anyway, which in that sense, is it better not to accept and educate them to mitigate risks, instead of shun and spit on them?

Crimes happen anyway, but we don't legalize them. We still shun them. You can educate people without allowing them to do something. Incest is not inherent like sexuality, you can get over it and find a new partner. Your rethoric falls flat.

I'm saying the people reason don't like incest has very little to do with procreation - it's a post-hoc justification, which, well, nothing you're saying here really denies that.

People hate incest regardless of whether or not procreation is possible. Incestuous homosexuals are not accepted. Incestuous sterile couples aren't given a pass. Viability has little to do with people's perceptions beyond giving them a scientific reason to justify their gut rejection of it.

It's good to know that you can read people's minds now. Well claim whatever you want lol
Genetic and psychological reasons are more than enough justification, no matter if some people merely use them as excuses.

On the contrary, I fundamentally disagree with you on many things. But you're welcome to end it here and I'll stop replying to whatever you post to this, if you do.

Well that's your problem then, I feel this is just repetitive now.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:05PM

Well that's your problem then, I feel this is just repetitive now.

Sure, then I'll stop. It certainly is repetitive, but not for the reason that we are in agreement. I don't feel like it's morally justifiable to deny rights to people who commit an act whose harm can be significantly mitigated in procedures we already enact for couples that we legalize that are at greater risk, and you feel the opposite on the basis that it's harmful for our greater society with no appreciable benefit to legalize. It's more of an "us" problem, really, and I certainly don't think we're changing each other's minds any time soon.

---

Scratch that, I do want to say one thing though.

And I just literally told you modern science, which has accepted Homosexuality as normal, still considers incest bad to a certain degree. Because of facts, not ideology.

If you think modern science is completely unblemished by political and social biases, well... you sweet summer child. I'm not even talking about incest in this case. To be honest, I hesitate to say it's even gotten better at all. Nevermind something as nebulous as defining whether something is a mental illness or not, even things you'd think are hard facts and numbers are often "interpreted" to a certain end, to put it softly.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:12PM

Edit to add: Please, folks, I understand people have Strong Feelings about things but personally I'm tired of having to scroll through entire novellas as the same three people continue to duke it out...

Voice of reason.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:15PM

sigh

Scratch that, I do want to say one thing though.

And I just literally told you modern science, which has accepted Homosexuality as normal, still considers incest bad to a certain degree. Because of facts, not ideology.

If you think modern science is completely unblemished by political and social biases, well... you sweet summer child. I'm not even talking about incest in this case. To be honest, I hesitate to say it's even gotten better at all. Nevermind something as nebulous as defining whether something is a mental illness or not, even things you'd think are hard facts and numbers are often "interpreted" to a certain end, to put it softly.

Of course it isn't. That's why the scientific consensus exists across the globe. Even if a certain faction lets their biases flood in, other scientists have different viewpoints. They all have to agree based on the data, however. Numbers are universal and because scientists with thousands of viewpoints all look at the same data, only what is actually objective can find any consensus.
Look... we aren't talking about a hypothesis here. Not about some nebulous concept like string "theory". Not about some complicated mental illness. It's incest. Something whose negative effects we can perceive with relative ease and basic observation.

Science always continues to improve and change, but there are some things that are more or less a given at some point, like the theory of evolution or gravity. Sure, psychological consequences are more vague, because psychology is a disgustingly vague "science", but we gotta work with what we have. The results are there, even if the deductions based on them aren't perfect. Pattern recognition is still a thing.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:24PM

sigh

Oh please, opening your post with that? You should have done that in the first place and saved us some time even bothering to discuss this if you're going to act like some exasperated teacher trying to correct a student. I would have just left your post be for the sake of ending this, but now I feel compelled to say something!

It's incest. Something whose negative effects we can perceive with relative ease and basic observation.

Says the person who literally just said they can't get realistic figures on consensual incestuous relationships a few posts before...? Now you're telling me that measuring the psychological aspects of consensual incestuous relationships can be done with relative ease?

Of course the genetics side of it is measurable, but if you're going to harp on that point further I'd have to assume you uh, didn't read anything I've been saying in regards to that. It can be mitigated, just as much as those with genetic disorders have their conditions mitigated. And even those with little to no risk at all like cousins don't exactly get a free pass, even in states where it's legal, it's still looked up on with a great deal of stigma. Nor does it address the stigmatization of homosexual incest, etc. which is stigmatized even by those who are accepting of homosexuality.

The rest of your post is mostly irrelevant to the main discussion so I'm not going to argue about the fallibility of modern science for the sake of brevity.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:37PM

I'm now vetoing this entire conversation. It's gone on past the point where you both were going to stop, and since neither of you seem capable of doing so I'll help out.

BugDevil and Minalinsky, shaddap!

Well that is a relief. Although I guess we can still continue this here https://dynasty-scans.com/forum/topics/10103-dynasty-cafe-a-home-for-off-topic-discussion-where-everyone-s-welcome?page=335
I'll at least try to give my final reply there.

I'm now vetoing this entire conversation. It's gone on past the point where you both were going to stop, and since neither of you seem capable of doing so I'll help out.

BugDevil and Minalinsky, shaddap!

B-but he started it!

Nah, jokes aside, I think I'm done. Feel free to leave a reply in that thread but the equivalent of getting water splashed in your face kinda dampens things so I think I'm going to do something else equally unproductive.