The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Gay twin brothers having sex: Right or wrong?

Gay incest?

  • I think it's hot.

    Votes: 144 68.9%

  • It's not my thing.

    Votes: 39 18.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 26 12.4%
  • Total voters
    209
^ don't you think it is splitting moral hairs when you say it is wrong for them to have sex together. Like previous poster said, it is not inbreeding . Like I posted earlier if we start talking about society morals in general; we know that the majority of society's moral standards come down very hard on us for being gay and having sex together. I wouldn't want brother and sister doing it, but for discussion purposes I think this discussion over two gay twin brothers is different
 
that incest taboo has to do mainly with inbreeding and also dangers of adult/child abuse. This situation with the two brothers meets none of that.

I just think is it hard to rationalize arguing against these two brothers having willing sex on the one hand and then try to argue with society in general that gay sex in general should be accepted by them. It is picking and choosing which of society morals you will accept. I am not objecting to your opinion, just curious about the objection to a sub-set of gay sex as it pertains to the twins; but then trying to disagree with society in general about "their" moral standards of not accepting gay sex. What am i missing as it relates to this discussion?
 
Since we are discussing moral opinions we could go back and forth on this for sure. I will be interested to hear other's arguments also.

I guess you could also argue that we are all related brother's, going back to Adam & Eve. So in the end we are having sex with our brothers already :) (just kidding)
 
^ I think you are jumping to conclusions about posters on here being permissivve of gay sex in general.

My point I am trying to make here is selective moral acceptance of behavior. You argue your point which your entitled to about these two brothers. But what I am most interested in, is how can you then turn around and argue with society in general that their moral standards agains gays and gay sex are not correct. If you accept the majority opinion on incest, how can you not accept the majority's MORAL Standards as it pertains to gay life style.? I sense a selective acceptance of what moral standards various posters are accepting and those which they object to. I am not condoning incest, what I am trying to differiate is selective choosing of which societal moral standards one abides by and ones which they don't
 
Icarus512 said:
The incest taboo does not have to do mainly with inbreeding. This is where we disagree. The core of the incest taboo is in blood relations and kinship. While there are a variety of ways to define kinship among societies, the most important forms of kinship are universally framed in terms of biological descent (blood). This is what the incest taboo is opposing, sexual relations among closely related kin.
There are cultural variations as to who is included in this taboo and to how violations of the taboo should be dealt with, but the taboo is present in one form or another everywhere.

It is not biological degeneration that drives people to put mechanisms in place to deal with incest, as societies were not always aware of the negative effects on genetic material, but they still had rules regarding incest. So while inbreeding may now be part of people's reasoning, the incest taboo was already present before this. Furthermore, there have been incest taboos found among societies who had no way of knowing the biological effects (the anthropologist in me wants to come out)



It's really not from this side :)
It's a matter of how you look at the situation. It's is not the fact that two men have sex that causes people to morally object to this thread's theme, as evident in several homosexuals members here opposing to sibling sex, but (obviously) not to gay sex.
It's the sibling part that makes it morally objectionable to people. And I'm not saying everyone should think this way, but societal rules for incest are of a different nature than those relating to two non-related males having sex.

You can see it as picking and choosing which of society's rules to follow and you can make that argument and have it make sense for sure, but it'd still not be correct in my opinion. Certain societal rules are stronger than others, some are more universal than others, some change fluidly while others stay rigid. It's hard to explain why some rules are deemed right and some are no longer deemed correct. But the incest rule will be here for a long long time I predict as blood relations and kinship relations based on blood are integral to human society.

Society changes, it adjusts. And while some societies may still oppose to two males having sex, most have adjusted. Some a little, some a lot, some not at all. But societal rules against two unrelated males having sex are not nearly as strong as societal rules against two closely related people having sex. Basically... Incest trumps gay. I'm not making the rules, but this is what it is.

I'm not objecting to your opinion either btw... I get where you're coming from, at least I think I do :)
Could you explain to me though how you see a brother-sister sexual relation as different from two brothers having sex. Because siblings are siblings, which is why, I think, members on here are saying it's wrong. Is it because brother-sister relations can produce offspring?
Click to expand...

Intellectually there still is no case against two brothers or a brother and sister having sex together as far as the brother and sister use the right contraceptives. You can not say: the taboo has always been there, so it is justified. Besides in some societies inbreeding was and is strongly stimulated (cousins in the Arab world, Egyptian pharaos, etc...).

The difference between a brother/brother relation and a brother/sister relation is the last can have offspring, if they don't use the right contraceptives.

If the ratio of the taboo incest is not inbreeding, it has NO ratio whatsoever and MUST lapse.
 
Icarus512 said:
^May I just throw out there that many societal rules are not consciously followed. They are ingrained in our behaviour and one does not even think about some of them, they are simply part of how you respond to things. Might explain a little why some rules are followed and others are not.
Click to expand...

Like traffic control signals: Red light/Green light. Most of society will stop for red and go on green. But when it comes to Walk/Wait signs on crosswalks, society is much more selective as to whether they obey them or not.
This point is for discussion illustrastion purposes only as to your point of following some rules and not others.
 
I think the definition of morally wrong being when you harm someone else is an excellent one and that's how I have always seen it.

I do think some incestous relationships would fall into that category and therefore be wrong, such as a father/mother taking advantage of a young son/daughter.

However, between two brothers who are both adults, I fail to see how anything like that would apply.
 
Parents/children is indeed something else, but this has led to so much abuse in divorce cases you finish wondering whether the taboo is not far more harmful than protective. I think in the present times the taboo is far more harmful than protective. When the harmfulness of the taboo is worse than the protection, it must lapse.
 
If inbreeding is a weak argument, as you say, or not the reason why there was incest taboo in the beginning, then it must be assumed the taboo is based on purely imaginary arguments. If based on purely imaginary arguments, it must lapse. An imaginary argument is no ratio whatsoever. It must be based on objective grounds (for instance the dangers for the offspring of a brother and a sister). The ratio can ONLY be inbreeding and nothing else. All the rest is purely irrational.
 
It's not my cut of tea to explore that sort of option myself, but I'm not going to really condemn it for others.

I mean, as long as they both want to, where's the harm? The general problems associated with incest, the idea that a child produced in incest can have serious birth defects, is a null point when it's two brothers having sex.

I don't think they should date, but I don't see the harm in someone sleeping with their brother.

I've heard plenty of stories of 'my big brother taught me to masturbate' to know that sometimes brothers get up to some shenanigans that involve sex on one level or another. So, if these two are just a little more open about it, and decided to make a little money from it, who are we to condemn really?
 
The_Reaper said:
It's not my cut of tea to explore that sort of option myself, but I'm not going to really condemn it for others.

I mean, as long as they both want to, where's the harm? The general problems associated with incest, the idea that a child produced in incest can have serious birth defects, is a null point when it's two brothers having sex.

I don't think they should date, but I don't see the harm in someone sleeping with their brother.

I've heard plenty of stories of 'my big brother taught me to masturbate' to know that sometimes brothers get up to some shenanigans that involve sex on one level or another. So, if these two are just a little more open about it, and decided to make a little money from it, who are we to condemn really?
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Wow, what a thread. My opinion is based on the fact that they are brothers... but first let me throw this out there...

If I remember correctly I'm sure I read somewhere that these 2 twins were actually having sex with each other long before Belami came along.

Does that change things? Does that make it ok?

I read the comments about that suggesting a childhood that was less than good... so let me paint this picture.

What if these guys come from a distant uncaring childhood where they found no love other than the bond between themselves. In a life of hurt and pain they found comfort and love in each others arms when no one else offered those same emotions to them.

The inevitability of that love was sex.

Does that change things? Does that make it right, that it began as an act of love between 2 people who were ironically alone and yet closer to someone than we can imagine?

Now I dont know if its true or not...

But as a gay man who has been judged and will continue to be judged by others for the rest of my life my thoughts are this.

I dont know thier lives. I dont know their history, thier pain or their happiness. What I do know is that they have had a journey thats brought them to here... how or why we may never be able to grasp.

And if it is in fact true that they were in fact sleeping with each other previously then it only makes me even surer that I have no right to judge.

Yes there are lines. Very hard and fast never to be broken lines.

Abuse, in any shape or form is intolerable... trust me I know. And parent child relationships are simply wrong simply because of the power relationship.

Its about emotion. To me thats whats important and makes me think I have no right to judge.

Sex isnt about the physical in most cases, its about the emotional - the good and the bad.

If these guys do this out of love, my first and in my mind the only real question that matters, is why? Why was it they had to find love in each others arms not someone elses?

When I know the answer to that I'll decide whether or not I have the right to judge.
 
tallguy297 said:
Sex isnt about the physical in most cases, its about the emotional - the good and the bad.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post but I'll have to kinda disagree here. For many gay men, and certainly anything related to porn, sex is often just about the physical.
 
Brothers having sex is the hottest thing ever! Always turned me on. I didn't read the 500 pages on this though, lol. People wanna argue this and that all the time on here but it's their choice to do it. If you don't like it than turn away. But don't ruin it for guys like me who thinks it is so fucking hot. Nice! where can I see this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top