Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: zuluwarrior on March 27, 2011, 06:21:08 PM
-
Fatherdaughter expect child together
and Claim to be victims of Genetic Sexual Attraction
PrintShare SendThu 24 Mar, 2011 08:00 am GMT
© nsphotography - Fotolia.com A woman who tracked down her long-lost father in the US is now pregnant with his child.
Garry Ryan, 46, was tracked down by his daughter Penny Lawrence, 28, last year. He had left Ms Lawrence's mother when she was pregnant, so father and daughter had never met.
Following the death of her mother and the grandparents who raised her, Ms Lawrence, from Los Angeles, became obsessed with finding her father, and tracked him down to Houston, Texas.
Upon meeting, they felt an instant physical attraction, which resulted in a sexual relationship. Ms Lawrence is now pregnant with her father's child.
The couple claim that their attraction is the result of something called Genetic Sexual Attraction, a term coined in the 1980s to describe overwhelming feelings between blood relatives who first meet as adults.
Speaking with The Irish Sun newspaper, Ms Lancaster said: "We are not committing incest, but are victims of GSA. We’ve never experienced a father-daughter relationship, so we’re just like any other strangers who meet in adulthood."
The couple said that if the three month scan of their baby shows it does not have birth defects, they plan to keep the child and raise it together.
The couple are aware that their relationship is illegal, and are afraid the law will be used to separate them.
In the US, a sexual relationship between close blood relatives is illegal, although the specifics of incest laws vary between states. A close blood relative usually includes father, mother, brother and sister, aunt, uncle, niece and nephew but may also extend to first cousins, step parents and step brothers and sisters.
Several theories surround the phenomenon of GSA, including the notion that humans are frequently attracted to faces similar to their own.
It also embraces the theory that if two people who are genetically related do not meet until adulthood, the normal sexual aversion that develops between siblings during childhood is somehow switched off.
Indeed, GSA can affect parents separated from their own children at birth, as well as siblings. It does not refer to a genetic sexual attraction, but to the fact that people are genetically connected.
The emotions that GSA engenders are reportedly intense and all consuming, leading those affected by it to act against their interest to pursue a relationship with their relative.
There have been cases of mothers and sons, and long lost brothers becoming intimate under the compulsion of GSA.
The situation is reported to be quite common in reunions between adoptees.
The term GSA was coined in the 1980s by Barbara Gonyo after reuniting with the son she had given up for adoption.
Upon reuniting with him 26 years later, she was horrified to discover that she had feelings for him akin to those of a lover, rather than a mother. She investigated her own feelings about her son and wrote a book in which she coined the phrase Genetic Sexual Attraction.
-
not cool
-
not cool
Yuh very P.C.
-
them have all kinda reason to justify they nastiness.
-
got pics
(http://cdn.thefrisky.com/images/uploads/gsa-032511-m.jpg)
-
VERY strong chance dat chile will come out down syndrome or wit some kind of mental defect.
Besides the obvious fact that this is a disgusting act, what the father and daughter did is not very smart, to put it mildly.
-
:puking: :puking: :puking:
-
Does the baby call the man Dad or Grandpa?
-
Does the baby call the man Dad or Grandpa?
Both dad in d morning and grandpa 4 dinner
-
how come black ppl dont suffer from these things?
-
talk about daddy issues
-
how come black ppl dont suffer from these things?
such is an imbalance that i hope stays
-
how come black ppl dont suffer from these things?
South Africa's shame: the rise of child rape
As the global spotlight turns on the World Cup host, charities demand action as 200,000 children are assaulted a year
By Rachel Shields
The Independent.co.uk
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Fuzeka, 12, and her sister in the shack they moved to in order to escape their father.
Tears stream down 11-year-old Ntombizanele's face and drip on to the coarse blue wool of her school uniform. She looks down at the dirt floor of the corrugated iron shack which she shares with her mother and four siblings, and begins to speak.
"I tried to get away, and begged them to leave me alone," she said, her voice wobbling. "He dragged me to the floor and did dirty things to me. I tried to get away, but I'd started bleeding. I was so scared."
Raped by two local teenagers, Ntombi suffered physical and mental wounds that were exacerbated by the treatment she received from the police and neighbours. Ostracised by friends in the large South African city of Port Elizabeth, many of whom believe that she should have kept quiet about the incident, Ntombi has since been threatened with further violence by her attackers, who were released on bail by police.
"One of them said he's going to murder me," she said, wrapping her skinny arms around herself. "It hurts so much when I see them."
While Ntombi's story is disturbing, in South Africa it is also commonplace. The country has the world's highest incidence of rape; a girl born there today has a one in three chance of finishing school, and a one in two chance of being raped. The stories behind these statistics are explored in the documentary Dispatches: The Lost Girls of South Africa, to be screened next Sunday at 9pm on Channel 4.
Like a third of the 200,000 children who are raped in South Africa every year, Fuzeka, 12, was attacked by a close relative. Staring straight ahead, she recounts how her father indecently assaulted her, and told her that when he slept with her he would use a condom as he is HIV positive.
"I can't believe my father wants to sleep with me," said Fuzeka, close to tears. "I stay awake to be sure that he doesn't come into my room."
Her mother, her gaunt face a sign of Aids, also weeps as she recounts her husband's justification: "My child cannot sleep with other men until I have slept with her first."
In order to get away from her father, Fuzeka's mother moved her and her younger sister into a tiny wooden shack with no electricity, running water nor toilet. Like eight million South Africans, they are forced to live in a crowded, informal settlement. Some experts believe that such living conditions – with children sharing rooms and beds with adults – and high levels of drug and alcohol use are two factors facilitating the sexual abuse. Social attitudes towards sex are also thought to contribute to the high incidence of rape.
"For many men, sex is an entitlement, they've de-linked it from love and pro-creation; it has become about one's own gratification," said Joan van Niekerk, a manager for Childline South Africa. The charity says that 80 per cent of the rape cases it deals with involve victims under 13. "We need programmes for boys which celebrate masculinity from a point of view of protecting, caring, and managing appetites."
A 2009 survey by the country's Medical Research Council found that one in four men admits to raping someone; while 62 per cent of boys over 11 believe that forcing someone to have sex is not an act of violence, with a third believing that girls enjoy rape. The government – led by President Jacob Zuma, who was tried for rape in 2006 – has been criticised for not tackling the problem and police and judicial failings have been highlighted.
But for many victims, worries that their rapist will go unpunished are secondary to a much bigger fear: that they may have contracted HIV. South Africa has the highest number of people infected with the virus in the world – 5.7 million people have HIV or Aids.
The eyes of the world will be on South Africa next month, when more than 350,000 football fans will arrive for the World Cup. Many charity workers fear that this will make children even more vulnerable to sexual violence and a national campaign by Unicef will try to raise awareness of the issue.
Deborah Shipley, the director of the Dispatches documentary, said that the girls who took part were also hoping to highlight the issue: "They felt very strongly that it is an outrage which should be stopped, and by talking about it they could help."
-
I'm guessing what g is referring to is a consenting relationship as opposed to attacking and raping children which seems to cross all ethnic and cultural boundaries
both repugnant chalk and cheese
-
I'm guessing what g is referring to is a consenting relationship as opposed to attacking and raping children which seems to cross all ethnic and cultural boundaries
both repugnant chalk and cheese
After g's comment, I did some internet searches on Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) and only came across 2 additional cases. The 1st was the originator of the phrase GSA. The second was an Australian couple.
So there are three documented cases on GSA that I found based on a cursory internet search, all of whom are white. However, given the low sampling and the lack of documented cases one cannot conclusively state that this is a white thing only.
Bringing race into this phenomena is unwarranted. This suggests that somehow or the other, moral behaviour is defined by race. (although the proponents of GSA says it has nothing to do with morality but some people are genetically predisposed to being sexually attracted to similar genotypes i.e family :puking:).
-
GSA..... is there even a real gene they identified (blamed) ?
-
I'm guessing what g is referring to is a consenting relationship as opposed to attacking and raping children which seems to cross all ethnic and cultural boundaries
both repugnant chalk and cheese
Better to suffer from consent than from child rape. As Pecan said is only a few cases of people with the gumption to come out with it big and bold, so injecting race into the equation is kinda reactionary. You can certainly present the case that the majority of child pornography/sex consumers in Western nations are overwhelmingly whites, but the behaviour is by no means exclusive to whites
-
GSA..... is there even a real gene they identified (blamed) ?
IMO the theory is complete 'unporven', i.e. horseshit. My guess is its based on yet another unproven theory that says sexual attraction is based partly upon sensory interactions of the major histocompatibility complexes (MHC) of organisms.
That theory states that information on the potential mate's genetic make up is 'scanned' and rated for by the MHC of the other to see if their union would produce a healthy offspring. If this is true it means there isn't probably isn't any specific gene involved, but the breakdown of normal socio-genetic processes
-
How you go brush your daughter? >:( Pure slackness. See how science trying to say..No No it cool..It have a gene. blah blah blah. Their ignorance causing em to ruin society event to the point of breaking universal laws. Ey ey see look leh chill yes. >:(
-
How you go brush your daughter? >:( Pure slackness. See how science trying to say..No No it cool..It have a gene. blah blah blah. Their ignorance causing em to ruin society event to the point of breaking universal laws. Ey ey see look leh chill yes. >:(
How 'science trying to say it cool? Where does it say that?
Its some damn pseudo theory espoused by a few crackpots that are not associated with real science. According to wikipedia the the concept of GSA was made up by some adoption support group, not scientists. The theories I presume they basing GSA on are from are early stage theories that examine ways that creatures use their genetics to pick SUITABLE mates and REPEL others that are closely related and therefore INCOMPATIBLE.
If anything science has clearly shown that incest is the cause of serious genetic damage.
-
Dat is ah real f**Ked up situation :shameonyou:
-
How you go brush your daughter? >:( Pure slackness. See how science trying to say..No No it cool..It have a gene. blah blah blah. Their ignorance causing em to ruin society event to the point of breaking universal laws. Ey ey see look leh chill yes. >:(
How 'science trying to say it cool? Where does it say that?
Its some damn pseudo theory espoused by a few crackpots that are not associated with real science. According to wikipedia the the concept of GSA was made up by some adoption support group, not scientists. The theories I presume they basing GSA on are from are early stage theories that examine ways that creatures use their genetics to pick SUITABLE mates and REPEL others that are closely related and therefore INCOMPATIBLE.
If anything science has clearly shown that incest is the cause of serious genetic damage.
It just ain't have the right scientists saying it. YET. Science full of theories that it does try to force feed people as law. Anyways I going an check the U20s score.
-
How you go brush your daughter? >:( Pure slackness. See how science trying to say..No No it cool..It have a gene. blah blah blah. Their ignorance causing em to ruin society event to the point of breaking universal laws. Ey ey see look leh chill yes. >:(
How 'science trying to say it cool? Where does it say that?
Its some damn pseudo theory espoused by a few crackpots that are not associated with real science. According to wikipedia the the concept of GSA was made up by some adoption support group, not scientists. The theories I presume they basing GSA on are from are early stage theories that examine ways that creatures use their genetics to pick SUITABLE mates and REPEL others that are closely related and therefore INCOMPATIBLE.
If anything science has clearly shown that incest is the cause of serious genetic damage.
It just ain't have the right scientists saying it. YET. Science full of theories that it does try to force feed people as law. Anyways I going an check the U20s score.
Science unlike religion does not force feed anything down anyone's throat!
Science is peer reviewed and stands up to scrutiny if it to be come a theory or a fact. You need to acquaint yourself with crusades etc. and see who does force feed anyhting...steups
-
besides when Cain kill abel and adam and eve had children weren't they involved in incest...and since God changes not, he is the same yesterday, toay and tomorrow....well you could get the gist!
-
besides when Cain kill abel and adam and eve had children weren't they involved in incest...and since God changes not, he is the same yesterday, toay and tomorrow....well you could get the gist!
Even science, in explaining the origins of man, would have to concede the necessity of incest at some point.
-
besides when Cain kill abel and adam and eve had children weren't they involved in incest...and since God changes not, he is the same yesterday, toay and tomorrow....well you could get the gist!
ok figure that out for you !. You see those first humans where perfect ,so they had no recessive bad genes to bring together to cause defects .
Even doh , cane and his offspring where very bad ppl .
-
besides when Cain kill abel and adam and eve had children weren't they involved in incest...and since God changes not, he is the same yesterday, toay and tomorrow....well you could get the gist!
ok figure that out for you !. You see those first humans where perfect ,so they had no recessive bad genes to bring together to cause defects .
Even doh they cane and his offspring where very bad ppl .
steups. and bakes there is no need for science to explain that incest was necessary, becasue that is not necessarily so at all.
-
incest is all relative ...
-
besides when Cain kill abel and adam and eve had children weren't they involved in incest...and since God changes not, he is the same yesterday, toay and tomorrow....well you could get the gist!
ok figure that out for you !. You see those first humans where perfect ,so they had no recessive bad genes to bring together to cause defects .
Even doh they cane and his offspring where very bad ppl .
steups. and bakes there is no need for science to explain that incest was necessary, becasue that is not necessarily so at all.
what yah steuppsing for ,that a brilliant point ! Ok how about this Cain was a half brother to the rest of the kids .Or how about this ,they where not suppose to have kids ,all that happen happened after god kicked them out.
-
although Darwin married his first cousin.
Having two of a species doesn't have the genetic diversity to build a whole population from. Incest is relatively bad, and it does decrease the variety of teh gene pool and thus allows (detrimental) recessive mutations tuhbecome obvious an cause phenotpyes an disease.
-
AFAIK incest does not produce new genetic damages. It only increases the occurrence of already damaged genes, which we all have. If Adam and Eve were indeed the first versions of humanity, its plausible that God created them genetically perfect...they might not have had any disease in their genes. Following this, they would not have passed bad genes to their offspring. So all the incest of their offspring probably did not physically suffer. But over time mutations naturally occur due to even simple things like ingesting mildly poisionous substances and sunlight. Once that gets into the germline its passed down to the next generation.
That is just my speculation BTW. Either way I think we are all in agreement that it is a nastiness
-
steups. and bakes there is no need for science to explain that incest was necessary, becasue that is not necessarily so at all.
Is like sometimes you just like arguing tuh see yuh fingers move. All humans arose out of a very small gene pool... at some point in the history of sexual reproduction there was "cross-pollination" within said small gene pool. The biblical story of Cain and Abel tells the same tale spun a different way.
-
Let me back up and say i don't have any issue with science. The issue I have is that man always trying to take credit for God's stuff and not give credit where credit is due and then try to justify SIN and slackness. The very laws that give science credibility came from God. It's called control and order. Without these two things there is no science. Yet some scientist will claim that this control and order came out of chaos. An assumption not proven to exist anywhere else in the universe. It's to hard to for science to believe that a God with purpose in mind set everything in motion. Science is good at telling you the 'how' but it always fails at telling you the 'why.' This is so because the 'why' or the purpose of all things are wrapped up in the heart of God. Purpose:The original intent for creating something. If you don't believe in God, that will always be hid from you, even the purpose of your own life. You'll be stuck in the how to live, but never know why you're alive.
Concerning Adam:
It's not so hard to understand how one pair can spawn many if you understand how God works. However, there is a premise. First, we must at least acknowledge that God is not just smarter than us. He is beyond us at levels that we can't track with our mental capacity. The proof is in the order and balance upon which creation holds together. The details and the intricacies more that suggest a wisdom beyond anything we can duplicate.
Upon that premise place this principle. God creates the end and then starts at the beginning. God created everything once and He created it fully ground, animals and trees. Within those adult organisms He placed the seed, potential and power to create the rest. Adam and Eve were introduced into the story grown. That was the end. Fully man. And God said, "It is good." And He left them to start at the beginning. So assuming the premise, it's not a stretch to see that God can create something in perfection and place within it all that it needs to fulfill it's purpose, which back then was simply to obey God, watch over the earth and multiply. With that being the purpose i think God is able to handle His business. ;D
Everything comes to this planet fully loaded, even you and I. As we move through life we get triggered by things that drive us in directions that we don't really understand and can't always verbalize. Nobody is here by chance every life is valuable because God made us. Bottom line, our purpose can only be found by seeking the heart of God.
-
who create GOD? (assuming there is one) i always ask myself that. Why do we even exist? how can something form from nothing. ? interesting thought.
-
D.H. bro, I'm fully aware that at the end of all things most of my religious precepts maybe wrong. And I'm cool with that. I know regardless of what men say, religious or not, there's something bigger than humans at work.
-
D.H. bro, I'm fully aware that at the end of all things most of my religious precepts maybe wrong. And I'm cool with that. I know regardless of what men say, religious or not, there's something bigger than humans at work.
Yep,a higher power is in play and does exist!
-
Science is good at telling you the 'how' but it always fails at telling you the 'why.'
I good with that. I want to know that when my loved ones are in hospital science helps provides the care and medicine they need. When I am driving I want my transmission and ABS to work. When I want to go T&T I don't have to walk dey from Canada. When I want to watch a little football or talk on the internet science provides that too. The why is for folks to figure out on their own.
And by the way science does not always fail to tell us the 'why. It answers the 'why on many things. Just not on certain questions. Yet.
I don't understand why many religious/spiritual people feel the need to attack science. Its like fire, simply a tool, nothing more. The most pressing problems in this world are invariably caused by malice and greed in some form or other. Evil, malice and greed have been manifest on this earth far longer than science has been around and will still be manifest tomorrow even if we forget every single piece of scientific knowledge we have ever learned.
-
Fair enough. :beermug:
-
Science is good at telling you the 'how' but it always fails at telling you the 'why.'
I good with that. I want to know that when my loved ones are in hospital science helps provides the care and medicine they need. When I am driving I want my transmission and ABS to work. When I want to go T&T I don't have to walk dey from Canada. When I want to watch a little football or talk on the internet science provides that too. The why is for folks to figure out on their own.
And by the way science does not always fail to tell us the 'why. It answers the 'why on many things. Just not on certain questions. Yet.
I don't understand why many religious/spiritual people feel the need to attack science. Its like fire, simply a tool, nothing more. The most pressing problems in this world are invariably caused by malice and greed in some form or other. Evil, malice and greed have been manifest on this earth far longer than science has been around and will still be manifest tomorrow even if we forget every single piece of scientific knowledge we have ever learned.
well said