Thread Tools
Old 02-02-2005, 06:49 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,543
Why is incest so bad?

Inspired by this thread I have to ask the same question about incest among siblings (definately not parents and kids).

While my knee jerk reaction to it is the same as gay marriage (hey, not for me, don't like to even put that image in my head) I wonder why people would be okay with gay marriage but not a sibling marriage.

I realize the natural complications with it regarding having offspring with high probability of birth defects but if two consenting adults who happen to be siblings wanted to get married and adopt a child, what non-religious reason besides "that's just so wrong" would there be to be against it.

I've brought this up in conversation when talking to people who are "pro-gay marriage" and expressed my opinion as "While not for me, I have no problem with it, same as sibling marriage."
I get dirty looks and comments like "That's not even funny. They aren't even close to being the same thing."
Old 02-02-2005, 06:52 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711
Following your line of reason, why would it be wrong for parents/offspring as long as they don't reproduce?
Old 02-02-2005, 06:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South of Georgia
Posts: 355
Ummm...marry my brother? Ummmm...ewwwwww!
I mean, I just think most people are not attracted to siblings in that way. But...is it morally wrong? I don't think so. If both parties are agreeable to it, and are aware of their actions on an adult level, they should go for it.
Old 02-02-2005, 07:01 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711
I'm the same way, I'm about as liberal as one can be in concerns of sex and the law. If mommy and son want to get hitched, well, hey, go for it. You only get one chance on this rock, might as well be happy.

Of course, why is it considered wrong by most people? Well, I can't think of any religious text that says incest is OK. Plus, as sweetfreak showed, there is a large 'ick' factor for most people.
Old 02-02-2005, 09:43 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstay
Plus, as sweetfreak showed, there is a large 'ick' factor for most people.
Well, yeah, but so? There's a large "ick" factor for many heterosexuals towards homosexuality. I have the "ewww" reaction to the thought of me, personally, marrying and/or getting amorous with another man, but that's no basis for judging others who'd want to.
Old 02-02-2005, 09:47 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711
Well, I never said it was logical. I was just saying why most people look down on it.
Old 02-02-2005, 11:17 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 195
is there a lot of people pushing for this kind of legislation or are we just being academic?
Old 02-02-2005, 11:21 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
It wouldn't bother me. Legalize it. Consenting adults are consenting adults.

The key words being "consenting" and "adults."
Old 02-02-2005, 11:33 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,349
Interestingly enough, conservatives argued that the "slippery slope" to incest was one reason to oppose gay marriage. Of course, my reaction was the same -- So what? If it's what they want, and it doesn't effect me, then go for it.

I think the biggest difference between the two (right now) is that most people think incest is morally wrong (as well as icky). Which I guess means it's pretty similar to the situation homosexuality was in 50 years ago.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure that if the issue is ever raised on a national level, conservative columnists will be publishing articles about how brothers marrying their sisters is inextricably tied to cancer in lab rats or something.
Old 02-02-2005, 11:35 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,419
If the societal aspects of sibling sexual relationships were entirely among adult siblings, there might be some reason to say, "hey, consenting adults, whatever." But the pragmatic facts of sibling life are that you can't make an adult decision at the time when you are beginning to form your sexual attitudes. Your siblings are there, the relationship is intimate, and without a taboo (or moral guidance, if you prefer) the decision is inevitably going to be made by children. So, we instruct our children not to have sex with their siblings, and we make it clear that that is a very strict and all inclusive restriction. The ewww part is conditioning.

Tris
Old 02-02-2005, 11:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: M-town
Posts: 1,013
This thread to be locked in 5... 4...
Old 02-02-2005, 11:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,797
As long as they don't reproduce, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But how do you keep siblings from reproducing with one another, if they're adults?

I do think that intermarriage between close family members runs contrary to the very foundations of human evolution. If it hadn't been for the development of a large pool of fairly unrelated people to partner with, humans would have remained inbred and unintelligent. I think we owe it to ourselves to keep this trend towards exogamy going.

I guess my complaints against sibling marriage stem from the fact that nobody really has to marry their sibling. I don't think there's a legitimate "orientation" that makes people want to sleep with their brothers or sisters, in the same way that homosexuality is dictated by biology and/or psychology. Does anyone really suffer grave consequences from not being able to marry their kin? But again, as long as you can legally prevent them from reproducing (maybe by limiting marriage to couples who are infertile or too old to have kids?), I guess I wouldn't mind it being legal.
Old 02-02-2005, 11:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstay
Of course, why is it considered wrong by most people?
Most higher mammals have an incest taboo. That ick factor is heavily ingrained in our psyche for good biological reasons. I can't help but think two siblings who consented to an insectual relationship must be seriously disturbed in some other way.
Old 02-02-2005, 11:53 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domokun
insectual
Insestual. An insectual relationship would be even more icky.
Old 02-02-2005, 11:54 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domokun
I can't help but think two siblings who consented to an insectual relationship must be seriously disturbed in some other way.
I'll say. I don't even know how that's physically possible.
Old 02-02-2005, 11:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domokun
I can't help but think two siblings who consented to an insectual relationship must be seriously disturbed in some other way.
OW (slap!) darn mosquitoes...Yea, those "insectual" relationships bug me too!
Old 02-02-2005, 11:59 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,349
That's an interesting point, Triskadecamus, and one that I hadn't thought of. I guess the big question is whether relaxing the government's prohibition on sibling marriage will necessarily relax the moral effect of the prohibition within families. And frankly, I don't know the answer to that. But the libertarian in me thinks the government's presence in any area is probably unnecessary.

As for limiting marriage to infertile siblings, I'm pretty sure that would give rise to some steep constitutional challenges. Marriage and procreation are considered fundamental rights under the Constitution. If you allow incestuous marriage, you've got to give a darn good reason for why you won't allow incestuous reproduction. And since we allow stupid people to get married and reproduce, it seems pretty unlikely that a court would buy the argument that we're trying to reinforce the gene pool. But I realize that something doesn't need to be "legal" to make good sense, so I'm just spitballing over here.
Old 02-03-2005, 02:04 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triskadecamus
If the societal aspects of sibling sexual relationships were entirely among adult siblings, there might be some reason to say, "hey, consenting adults, whatever." But the pragmatic facts of sibling life are that you can't make an adult decision at the time when you are beginning to form your sexual attitudes. Your siblings are there, the relationship is intimate, and without a taboo (or moral guidance, if you prefer) the decision is inevitably going to be made by children. So, we instruct our children not to have sex with their siblings, and we make it clear that that is a very strict and all inclusive restriction. The ewww part is conditioning.

Tris
I don't believe that at all. My parents never had to tell me not to have sex with my sister.
Old 02-03-2005, 05:31 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 84
Don't be silly, of course it's conditionning. Animals committing incest is by no means unheard of.

Are there any figures on how many incestuous generations it would take for genetic defects to arise in the offsprings? (how many generations for them to be 10 times as likely, 100 times? 1000?)
Old 02-03-2005, 06:13 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 4,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by continuity eror
But again, as long as you can legally prevent them from reproducing (maybe by limiting marriage to couples who are infertile or too old to have kids?), I guess I wouldn't mind it being legal.
Are there any other kind of relationships you’d want to restrict reproduction in? First cousins? People with a higher chance of inherited defects like mongolism? Negroes with the sicle cell genes? How about naturally infertile people? They’re likely to pass on their infertility to their children if artificially impregnated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by recurriman
Don't be silly, of course it's conditionning. Animals committing incest is by no means unheard of.
Of course not. But tests with rats show they’ll pick a mate not of close kin if given the choice. No reason to think the taboo amongst humans don’t involve elements of both social conditioning as well as instinctual behaviour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by recurriman
Are there any figures on how many incestuous generations it would take for genetic defects to arise in the offsprings? (how many generations for them to be 10 times as likely, 100 times? 1000?)
The negative (as well as positive) genetic consequences will manifest themselves in 1 generation. Currently cousin marriage amongst Arab immigrants in Denmark results in significant higher rate of birth defects.
Old 02-03-2005, 07:09 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domokun
I can't help but think two siblings who consented to an insectual relationship must be seriously disturbed in some other way.
I keep thinking of the couple in "People under the Stairs" when I read this.

So, if two people have a high chance of having unhealthy offspring, is it the government's role to stop them from marrying and reproducing? I find that to be a very tough question. Ignoring the brother/sister thing, and just thinking "genetically incompatible", then how do you justify the government getting involved in some cases, but not others (two people with mild sickle-cell, say). Then again, won't someone think of the (un-concieved) children?

As for parents marrying children. I am strictly against this. As someone who ran a business for 12 years in partnership with a parent, I can say that the parent/child relationship does not translate well into an equal relationship. It (IMO) will almost always cause problems. Whether it should be legislated against, I'm not sure, but I do feel this type of marriage is wrong.
Old 02-03-2005, 07:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,077
All I can think of with regard to legalized incest between consenting adults (people over 18) is, damn, that will really cross the wires of your family tree and create some odd tensions at family reunions. Families are screwed up enough without having everybody screwing each other.
Old 02-03-2005, 07:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maastricht / NLD / EU
Posts: 1,158
Everyone interested in this thread should see Old Boy, the Korean Cannes winner (when Tarantino was head of jury). It's awesome.
Old 02-03-2005, 07:21 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England, Britain, UK
Posts: 18,480
Eugenically, isn't sibling breeding a good thing? Any potentially dangerous recombinants they have go ahead and recombine, and eliminate themselves from the gene pool. Any offspring that don't croak are, statistically, likelier not to have the recombinants. The average quality of the offspring goes up. (That's very tersely and inexactly expressed, of course, to say nothing of callous, but as long as we're being all objective about this, why worry?)
__________________
SDMB chess champion 2010
Old 02-03-2005, 07:27 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,817
I think the problem with brother-sister (or brother-brother) incest is not a big deal, to be honest. There's the genetic angle to think of, but hey, if they don't plan on procreating it's no skin off my back. I am also sure it happens a lot more than people talk about, especially in less-developed countries.

Now, on the other issue, the parent-child incest one, that's a whole different issue. It's a question of power and such to me. The parent will always be seen as a 'power' figure, even after the child is grown, so how realistic is it that a parent-child consensual relationship really is consensual? I think it's a morally slippery slope.

Similar to teacher-student relationships, to a degree. A student can hook up with a teacher after that teacher isn't the student's teacher anymore (try saying that one three times fast! ), and I wouldn't look askance at that, but you don't stop being someone's parent or someone's child.
Old 02-03-2005, 09:18 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Y Mariana (S. R.)
Posts: 1,852
I too am in the If-They're-Consenting-Adults-Let-Them-Get-It-On crowd. It seems that the main reason it's not allowed is because of the religious and "ick" factor. The genetic factor is an issue, but we clearly let people with all sorts of nasty genetic diseases breed, so it shouldn't be a dealbreaker. In any case, if the genetic issue were the only societal issue that kept it from happening, you could make incestual breeding illegal, but not incestual relationships.

But, in the interests of strategy, I think it would be better to first get gay marriage approved before even bringing other sexual issues to the national debate. If gay marriage were linked to incest, we'd prolly be staring at another 100 years before complete national legalization...
Old 02-03-2005, 01:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sierra Nevada, CA
Posts: 1,934
There is some biological evidence for the incest taboo, suggesting that not screwing your brother/sister is more than just "conditioning." It's called the Westermark Effect (also called the Familiarity Hypothesis) and it suggests that "animals are not sexually stimulated by the individuals with whom they interact during critical periods in their early lives (Gray 1985:198)." While siblings are the most obvious candidate for someone with whom you interact with during these critical periods, the evidence extends the Effect even to non-related individuals with whom you were raised. Further, even in the cases where sexual activity occurs, these relationships have much lower rates of reporductive success and, when marriage occurs, much higher rates of divorce (Gray 1985:215).

If this is the case, then perhaps "conditioning" is what causes the incest...not what precludes it.

Reference:

Gray, J. Patrick
1985 Primate Sociobiology. HRAF Press, New Haven.
__________________
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever." - David St. Hubbins
Old 02-03-2005, 03:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windwalker
The genetic factor is an issue, but we clearly let people with all sorts of nasty genetic diseases breed, so it shouldn't be a dealbreaker.
Yes, but people who already have genetic diseases can't help it. Forbidding them to breed would be cruel because their genes were caused by forces outside their control. But when you breed with a sibling, you're knowingly exposing potential children to problems. You're creating a genetic disease where none existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis
Marriage and procreation are considered fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Really? I'm sure that millions of gays as well as thousands of Native Americans and mental patients who were sterilized by the state would call you on that.
Old 02-03-2005, 04:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by continuity eror
Really? I'm sure that millions of gays as well as thousands of Native Americans and mental patients who were sterilized by the state would call you on that.
Really? Thousands of mental patients? Millions of gays? Can I have a cite, please?

Anyway, those people wouldn't be calling me on anything. They'd be calling the United States Supreme Court.

Marriage is a fundamental right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by United States Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Procreation is a fundamental right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by United States Supreme Court in Skinner v. Oklahoma
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
Old 02-03-2005, 11:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune

Of course not. But tests with rats show they’ll pick a mate not of close kin if given the choice. No reason to think the taboo amongst humans don’t involve elements of both social conditioning as well as instinctual behaviour.
Well then, I stand corrected!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune
The negative (as well as positive) genetic consequences will manifest themselves in 1 generation. Currently cousin marriage amongst Arab immigrants in Denmark results in significant higher rate of birth defects.
Positive consequences? How surprising! Could you give some examples?
Old 02-03-2005, 11:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: East Lansing, MI
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by continuity eror
Really? I'm sure that millions of gays as well as thousands of Native Americans and mental patients who were sterilized by the state would call you on that.
Note: the USSC has never ruled that marriage is other than a union between a man and a woman. Thus when the USSC ruled marriage is a basic civil right, they weren't thinking about gays. "Gay marriage" is a logical impossibility of the definition of marriage depends on it being between people of the opposite sex.
Old 02-03-2005, 11:20 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune
The negative (as well as positive) genetic consequences will manifest themselves in 1 generation. Currently cousin marriage amongst Arab immigrants in Denmark results in significant higher rate of birth defects.
Really? Is there a trustable cite to this as I was under the impression recent research was showing the genetic concerns to be overblown.

My problem with incest comes from the supposition I have that it is overwhelmingly abusive. As such the state can regulate (or ban it) even if it does infringe on the rights of the minority of cases where it is not abusive. I'll confess up front to not having evidence to hand on that, though.
Old 02-04-2005, 12:50 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 10,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis
Really? Thousands of mental patients? Millions of gays? Can I have a cite, please?
I think that was meant to be read as 'thousands of mental patients who were sterilized' and 'millions of gays who aren't allowed to marry', but I can give you a cite on the sterilizations:

http://cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...rile_past.html
Quote:
In 1907, Indiana became the first state to pass a law permitting involuntary sterilizations on eugenic grounds; at least 30 states would follow suit. Many of them simply adopted a model "eugenical sterilization law," crafted by the ERO’s Harry Laughlin, which called for compulsory sterilizations of the "socially inadequate." By the mid-1920s, more than 3,000 people had been sterilized against their wills. These included the homeless, orphans, epileptics, the blind and deaf. Also sterilized were those who scored poorly on IQ tests, who were diagnosed as being "feebleminded."

...

the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Buck v. Bell (1927), ruled 8-1 to uphold the sterilization of Ms. Buck on the grounds she was a "deficient" mother. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., an adherent of eugenics, declared "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

...

May 2, 2002, marked the 75th anniversary of the shameful Buck v. Bell decision, which has never been overruled and was cited in a federal appeals case as recently as last year. The Court’s action in Buck led to the forced sterilization of more than 65,000 Americans by 1979.
The website also provides additional citations. You can also google 'eugenics' and ''sterilization'. In the Name of Eugenics by Daniel Kevles is a good, though somewhat dense, read.
Old 02-04-2005, 04:47 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 4,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by recurriman
Positive consequences? How surprising! Could you give some examples?
No specific. But breeding close kin is a common practise in husbandry and pet breeding when you want to bring out certain specific traits. The same happens in human close kin breeding. The bad as well as the good is crystallised and emphasised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by villa
Really? Is there a trustable cite to this as I was under the impression recent research was showing the genetic concerns to be overblown.
A cite for what? That the effect will be there after 1 generation or that cousin marriage has shown to increase the number of inherited defects? The effects of inbreeding is not something which magically appears after X generation. The consequences are accumulative but felt from generation 1. Whether it’s anything to worry about in generation 1 is another question.

The number of children born with severe handicaps living in Copenhagen has increased by 100% within the last 10 years. This is given as a result of:
A) Higher age of mothers.
B) More children survive.
C) A larger immigrant community where cousin marriage is more common.

Here is “Ugeskrift for læger” (Weekly Journal for Doctors) which is the (modest) Danish version of the Lancet.

Quote:
This increased risk of consanguinity couples in relation to non-consanguinity couples in having children with inborn defects is found in several surveys (Table 1). It is shown that the risk of having children with such defects is generally found to be around 2 1/2 times higher for consanguinity couples. It is further shown that the rate of defects in children of uncle-niece marriages (9,34%) is higher that of cousin marriages (6,18%).

[…]

It appears that consanguinity couples have an increased risk of having children with born defects. The risk for birth defects is increased by 2-2.5 in relation to the background risk, which in Denmark currently is around 3%”

Denne øgede risiko for konsangvine i forhold til ikkekonsangvine for at få børn med medfødte misdannelser kan genfindes i flere studier (Tabel 1). Man ser, at risikoen for at få børn med medfødte misdannelser gennemgående er fundet at være ca. 21/2 gange højere for konsangvine end for ikkekonsangvine. Det er desuden vist at incidensen af malformationer er højere for børn af onkel-niece-forældre (9,34%) end for børn af fætter-kusine-forældren (6,18%).
[…]
Af litteraturen fremgår det, at konsangvine par har en forøget risiko for at få børn med medfødte misdannelser. Risikoen for føtale misdannelser er forhøjet 2-21/2 gange i forhold til baggrundsrisikoen, som i Danmark er på ca. 3%
http://dadlnet.dk/ufl/2003/0318/VP-html/VP40063.pdf

Here’s some from Norway:
Quote:
Another survey from England with 4,934 children (Bundey og Alam, 1993) showed that the mortality and severe sickness is tripled in children of cousin marriages. 60% of the mortality amongst these children could be removed if there were no cousin marriages. In the group which partook in the survey were around 10% of the five year old children of cousin marriage either dead or affected by a severe sickness, typically mental retardation.
[…]
There are older surveys which reveals that children of cousin marriages score somewhat less on IQ tests (Plomin et al, 1980, Bittles, 1994).

Et andet studie fra England med 4.934 børn (Bundey og Alam, 1993) viser at dødeligheden og svær sygelighed er tredoblet blandt børn af fætter-kusine ægteskaber. Faktisk kunne 60% af dødeligheden blandt disse børn fjernes, hvis der ikke var fætter-kusineægteskaber. I den gruppe, der indgik i dette studie var ca. 10% af de femårige børn med fætter-kusine forældre enten døde eller påvirket af svær sygdom, typisk mental retardering.
[…]
Der findes ældre studier, der viser at børn af fætter-kusine-ægteskaber scorer lidt lavere på forskellige intelligenstests (Plomin et al, 1980, Bittles, 1994).
http://rights.no/webtekst/artikl...otat-norge.pdf

Here’s another source, from Centre for Human Genetics, on consanguinity marriage: http://consang.net/summary/01AHBWeb3.pdf

I don’t know if one can assume the effects of sibling marriage is twice that of cousin marriage, given that they share twice the number of genes. Probably not, but I think it’s safe to assume the effects are greater. Whether the concerns are overblown depends on what they were presentes as being.
Old 02-04-2005, 05:34 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 1,392
A thread on the same topic.
Old 02-04-2005, 07:59 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,529
I've just been reading the novel Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides, about a kid whose grandparents had been brother and sister... on top of that, his parents were cousins... and this concentrated a recessive gene that produced an intersexed child. Raised as a girl, turned into a boy during adolescence. The novelist cited a scientific paper on 5-alpha-reductase gene defects, something something, as a basis for the novel's plot. As genetic screwups go, this one was fairly benign. Just a change of gender. Could have been something much more unpleasant.
Old 02-04-2005, 09:53 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 31,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis
If it's what they want, and it doesn't effect me, then go for it.
I hate to be a pedant, but it looks like i'm going to be one today. You want to use affect. Effect is the wrong word here.

Other than that I agree with you. Like someone else said, you only go around once and it's already so difficult to stay happy in this world.
Old 02-05-2005, 08:12 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Auckland
Posts: 6,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaamika
I hate to be a pedant, but it looks like i'm going to be one today.
Ah, irony too rich and thick to spread on toast. {I hate smileys, so consider that to be typed in a humorous and non-condescending manner}
__________________
Detrimento malignitas; victoria ultio
Old 02-06-2005, 03:41 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,576
Donny and Marie Osmond seem to be a fairly happy couple.
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 PM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: craigslist redirect fork in microwave setar taimse bovine pigs asses and elbows oregano pronunciation mayor shinn lettuce brown rob corddry hair minigun rpm hypnotism for phobias rorschach speech drano hair shower baptism cost onions diarrhea electronic collar cat damn dirty apes roger healey cindy crawford vagina nudist males animal shit jl8 archive sudden stutter sedating a cat londo molari camping ground tarp define dirty weekend mcd wifi octane diesel uncontrolled substance definition thirsty at night does toner expire wind wound is it illegal to drive with no hood why do i feel like i have a fever but don't brewers yeast for fleas does it work will pimples go away on their own cable systems std hrc irc you scumbag you maggot lyrics what is gm unit oil based enamel paint drying time watch out for that first step how long does half and half last after opening are penn and teller lovers will dvd player play cds soda can fire starter longest hang time jump how heavy are boobs can i eat pizza left out overnight car wont go in gear automatic least lethal place to get shot pork chops and applesauce origin white hair growing on face third prong on plug broke magic wand massager walmart my eye makes a creaking sound 1998 honda accord catalytic converter replacement plunger for contact lenses penguins as a pet do you wear underwear under swim shorts monkey with blue eyes homosexuality in moby dick how to kill woodchucks how to cut a master lock how to tell which hard drive has the os