Export thread

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...rs-child-claims-theyre-in-love-118566849.html

"Last year Penny Lawrence (28) tracked down her long-lost father Garry Ryan (46). Lawrence is now pregnant with his child and claims to be in love with her father.

Garry Ryan was born in Dublin but moved to the US with his family when he was two. Lawrence's mother met him, fell pregnant but Ryan left before the child was born. Her mother returned to Ireland.
When Lawrence was four and living back in Ireland her mother died and her maternal grandparents raised her. They died when she was 18-years-old.
Lawrence then became fixated on finding her only remaining relative, her father. Last year she found him in Houston, Texas.
After several daily phone calls she flew to America to surprise him.
Ryan said that the pair felt an instant physical attraction and they soon began a relationship. Lawrence is now pregnant with his child.
Their situation they say can be accounted for by Genetic Sexual Attraction, a term which has been used since the 1980s to describe feelings of attraction between blood relatives who meet first as adults. There is a theory that humans are attracted to faces similar to their own. Also not meeting until both are adults means that normal sexual taboo between relatives has not had time to develop.
Speaking to the Irish Sun Newspaper Lawrence 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."
Lawrence revealed that her three month scan showed no defects. The couple now plan to proceed with the pregnancy and set up a home together.
They say they do realize that their relationship is illegal and are now afraid that they will be ordered apart by the courts.
He said "It’s no different than if I met Penny in a bar. I’d have fallen for her as I have now. It doesn’t feel like we are doing anything wrong."
Ryan explained his situation when he left Penny’s mother.
He said "I was an 18-year-old kid and when Angela told me she was pregnant I wanted to do the right thing. We decided to get married but Angela’s parents disapproved of the relationship and didn’t want me around."
Lawrence said her therapist had warned her about GSA. She said "I did some research into it. I was stunned that some brothers and sisters, daughters and dads and mothers and sons were actually living happily as man and wife."
However there is a lack of an actual medical and psychological definition and acknowledgement of GSA. As Ryan points out "GSA isn't recognized in court."

Click to expand...

I just...wow. I don't even know what to say about this. I can sort of understand the reasoning that they're both adults who never knew a father-daughter relationship before. On the other hand...it's a father-daughter having a relationship and a child.

How do you explain that to your child?

"Well, the thing about Grandpa Dad and I is...."

Things like this are not unheard of, and one seems to hear of them from time to time. I personally guess it has a lot to do with where society is willing to draw the line; when does informed consent suffice for encounters of the sort, and when does the horizontal mambo simply become unacceptable.

Oh, this is totally consential, that's obvious. However, it's between two consenting adults that are also father and daughter. And I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. This isn't like Woody Allen who married his adopted daughter - which in itself is icky enough - this is a guy boning someone he co-created.

But genetic anomalies aside...

Okay, I'm the first to admit I'm all sorts of kinky and depraved and perverted, but even I'm disgusted by this in real life. I know some people like that as a kind of sexual roleplay (you know, older man, younger woman kinda thing), but in application... yeccccchhhh...

Sleeping with your relative isn't going to necessarily create some genetic freak. Things can go wrong when two copies of the same recessive already present defect get passed on, basically ensuring that the offspring has that negative characteristic. But that doesn't have to happen.

There is incest, and then there is procreation. The two do not necessarily need to go together, as procreation is only possible between two people of the opposite sexes, whereas incest can happen regardless of the gender of the participants.

So do you guys think incest is wrong and condemnable in all circumstances, or only in those where there is a heightened risk of creating offspring with genetical abnormalities? What about the usage of prophylactics?

I'm trying to gauge your views on when moral concerns trump informed consent.

Meh. I've sort of always been of the opinion that if two (or three, or four) consenting adults want to enter into a relationship, the government should butt the hell out. The only real problem I have with this is the increased risk of birth defects, but then again, women who get pregnant in their forties also have an increased risk of birth defects. Should we tell them they can't have children either?

TommiR said:

So do you guys think incest is wrong and condemnable in all circumstances, or only in those where there is a heightened risk of creating offspring with genetical abnormalities? What about the usage of prophylactics?

Click to expand...

I think that incest is harmful for reasons beyond inbreeding. People have a psychological need for family, and that family relationship needs to be non-sexual in order to properly fill that role.

Which is your opinion, yes. Keep in mind that some people find that outside of genetic relations.

I find it icky. But I don't base what others can or can't do based on what I find icky. I mean, lots of people listen to Celine Dion, which I find reprehensible.

SeraRelm said:

Which is your opinion, yes. Keep in mind that some people find that outside of genetic relations.

Click to expand...

I never said they couldn't. In fact I have a good number of people who I'm not genetically related to whom I still consider to be family.

Relating this back to the original story, though. This woman went searching for her father after the death of everyone she'd known as a parent. She ended up having a sexual relationship with someone she sought out for a family relationship. There may be details I don't know, but based on what's in the news story she didn't find the family she needed when she found her father. That's sad, and problematic, if not immoral.

Then what does the hypothetical need for family have to do with their sexual relations?

Regardless, levels of morality are based on what one believes, and my belief is rather similar to Drolls, honestly. Consenting adults, etc. We can say she didn't find the family she needed in one sense, but considering they're having a child, isn't that a family?

SeraRelm said:

Then what does the hypothetical need for family have to do with their sexual relations?

Click to expand...

She sought him out because she was looking for a father and he can't fill that role for her now that he's having sex with her. Doesn't necessarily mean that she can't find other people to fill that family role, but she didn't find what she was looking for in him and there's no way to know if she's found it, or even realized she didn't find what she needed.

We can say she didn't find the family she needed in one sense, but considering they're having a child, isn't that a family?

Click to expand...

There are many different positions within a family. A child or husband are not the same as a parent or siblings. One can't replace the other.

figmentPez said:

She sought him out because she was looking for a father

Click to expand...

I saw nowhere in the news story where it said that. While I understand this sort of relationship is against your beliefs, she did find a family, regardless of the shape it turned out to be.

figmentPez said:

She sought him out because she was looking for a father and he can't fill that role for her now that he's having sex with her..

Click to expand...

She's 28. How much of a father figure can a complete stranger really become at that point in her life anyway?

SeraRelm said:

I saw nowhere in the news story where it said that. While I understand this sort of relationship is against your beliefs, she did find a family, regardless of the shape it turned out to be.

Click to expand...

"Lawrence then became fixated on finding her only remaining relative, her father."

Pez, there's really nothing psychologically damaging about what they're doing.

If this girl had any paternal feelings, they were already directed at her grandfather, who raised her.

Is this extremely taboo? yup. Is it causing her psychological harm? I don't really see how it could.

Your assumption that people need these familial bonds is completely subjective and is no way representative of every human being as a whole.

For the record, I do find it squinky as hell, but to claim psychological damage is overstating.

figmentPez said:

"Lawrence then became fixated on finding her only remaining relative, her father."

Click to expand...

Yes, "her only remaining relative". It doesn't say "she was looking for a father." It's a distinct difference.

BananaHands said:

Click to expand...

Good call.

BananaHands said:

Click to expand...

Are that cat's paws tied together?

Bowielee said:

Are that cat's paws tied together?

Click to expand...

Do you know a better way to transport a kitty prisoner?

I've been hearing about GSA for ages, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

And I'm usually in the "not hurting anyone, so it's not anyone else's business" camp. However, just because the three-month scan doesn't show any birth defects doesn't mean there aren't any. Inbreeding carries a higher risk of birth defects, so having a kid does strike me as somewhat irresponsible. If they were just having sex, but not making kids, I'd have zero problem with it.

SeraRelm said:

Click to expand...

bhamv3 said:

I've been hearing about GSA for ages, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

And I'm usually in the "not hurting anyone, so it's not anyone else's business" camp. However, just because the three-month scan doesn't show any birth defects doesn't mean there aren't any. Inbreeding carries a higher risk of birth defects, so having a kid does strike me as somewhat irresponsible. If they were just having sex, but not making kids, I'd have zero problem with it.

Click to expand...

Well, there are higher chances for people who carry such disabilities and women 40+. We can't legally tell people not to breed*... yet.



*(dependent on country)

SeraRelm said:

Well, there are higher chances for people who carry such disabilities and women 40+. We can't legally tell people not to breed*... yet.



*(dependent on country)

Click to expand...

So older women having kids would also strike me as somewhat irresponsible. I'm not going to say they're not allowed to have kids though, and I definitely wouldn't support any law in any country that tries to limit reproduction this way.

Though, really, the fact that some recessive genes may have a better chance to be dominant can be an issue. However, people tend to think that as soon as anyone blood related has a kid, it will pop out some sort of flipper baby. That's simply not the case.

Sociologically, that's most likely where the taboo came from in the first place. Breed the strongest children by varying the gene pool.

I'd not think the women 40+ thing was an issue when those entered into social circulation since people didn't live past 30-ish back then.

I obviously meant the taboo about blood relations, silly-boots.

I assumed, I was adding on to it about the lack of taboo association.

Man, I should've known the reprecussions of posting this news...

What, a thus far tame, yet involved discussion on the topic at hand with people able to disagree without resorting to attacks?

Totally our of control, I know.

Oh, it's a tame discussion compared to many, I agree. I just didn't expect some to be essentially defending it.

While I may not perform (nor wish to) the act, I'll not condemn it in and of itself.

ThatNickGuy said:

Oh, it's a tame discussion compared to many, I agree. I just didn't expect some to be essentially defending it.

Click to expand...

I generally try to look at any human interaction without projecting my own bias on it (I obviously don't always succeed, mind you). If you take away the "ew, they're blood related" out of the equation, what they're doing isn't really all that out of left field.

She doesn't know this guy as her father, and he doesn't know her as his daughter.

I've always felt that if two consenting adults wanna go at it without harming others, I don't care what they're doing.

Everyone knows the dangers of inbreeding.

I'd argue that according to biblical scripture, all of humanity is inbred, but it wouldn't refute your case.

This just reminds me that I have had a fear for a long time of accidentally meeting and having a relationship with one of my brothers. Apparently my father, whom I do not know, has many many children. I thought wouldn't that be horrifying to end up with my brother because my dad is a manwhore? I know my dad's name and I don't really go for guys who are way older than me so I don't really worry about that.
Maybe I should worry.

ugh.

makare said:

This just reminds me that I have had a fear for a long time of accidentally meeting and having a relationship with one of my brothers. Apparently my father, whom I do not know, has many many children. I thought wouldn't that be horrifying to end up with my brother because my dad is a manwhore? I know my dad's name and I don't really go for guys who are way older than me so I don't really worry about that.
Maybe I should worry.

ugh.

Click to expand...

Clearly the answer is to only have relationships with people you feel no sexual attraction to.

Or lesbianism.

sigh I have a lot of sister out there too.. damn it father you insufferable manwhore!

... I guess your only option is celibacy then.

I didn't know your dad was a manwhore, bhamv3 !

Psht, my dad was also celibate.

bhamv3 said:

Clearly the answer is to only have relationships with people you feel no sexual attraction to.

Click to expand...

I think she's going to see through your clever plan, Bammage.

My initial reaction is one of disgust, because I couldn't imagine being attracted to any of my blood relatives. But that's my situation. This is obviously a different one for these two people. I won't condemn people who find themselves in a situation where GSA comes into play, mostly because I just don't care about other people's sex lives. Consenting adults, etc, etc.

Though it'll mean if he uses the "who's your daddy" line on her, it'll be kinkier than usual.

Null said:

I think she's going to see through your clever plan, Bammage.

Click to expand...

What? No no no no, I do not hit on fellow forumites. I'm sure makare's a wonderful and very attractive female, but I have no intention of making forum females uncomfortable.

Well, at least not in that way.

bhamv3 said:

What? No no no no, I do not hit on fellow forumites. I'm sure makare's a wonderful and very attractive female, but I have no intention of making forum females uncomfortable.

Well, at least not in that way.

Click to expand...

What, like in the back of a Volkswagen?

ah yes.. a-trac-ti-on.

Funniest thing that happened to a friend of mine over which I felt bad for finding hilarious. He used the "who's your daddy" line and the other person started crying and saying "I don't know!"

good lord that should be on tape...

This is also the guy who was my roommate for like, a year. One time he burst into my room, looked me dead in the eye, then spiked his "bed partner"s underwear on the floor and proceeded to do an end zone dance.

Bowielee said:

Are that cat's paws tied together?

Click to expand...

I think he's Buddhist.

Yuck.

That said, I know that not growing up with an immediate family member during your formative years changes things.

Still. Yuck.

Bowielee said:

Though, really, the fact that some recessive genes may have a better chance to be dominant can be an issue. However, people tend to think that as soon as anyone blood related has a kid, it will pop out some sort of flipper baby. That's simply not the case.

Sociologically, that's most likely where the taboo came from in the first place. Breed the strongest children by varying the gene pool.

Click to expand...

bmp bmp bmp is this thing on? I almost said exactly the same thing like 5 posts up. Echo echo echo echo echo echo ...

There is a much higher chance of health problems down the line for a kid from an inbred relationship between father and daughter than normal. Different kinds of health problems than those typically associated with older mothers having kids. We're not talking flipper babies here but just some quick looking around on the internet seems to indicate a lot of general health issues that just aren't going to be as good as what you would get from a genetically diverse relationship.

As for their relationship itself? I could care less... but don't have babies from it. Ick.

Yeah, while it's not my cup of tea and I'm fine with society going, "ew" collectively to this pair, it's not exactly like he raised her then they developed a romantic relationship.

ThatNickGuy said:

Oh, it's a tame discussion compared to many, I agree. I just didn't expect some to be essentially defending it.

Click to expand...

I'm not defending it at all. I'm saying that, even though it's interesting (actually, super icky, if I think about myself and my own father) to think about, when it comes down to it I don't really care what they do

My dad's biological mother ran out on him when he was a baby and went on to have a bunch of other kids, so I know I have a bunch of other aunts/uncles/cousins that I've never met and wouldn't know from Pete running around within a 100-mile radius of where I grew up. I'd like to think I've managed to avoid sleeping with any of them, but GSA could definitely happen.

Part of the reason this is a problem for some, and worthy of discussion, is because it's really about power dynamics almost more than it is about blood relation.

It's impossible for most people to separate the fact that a father and/or mother has a position of power of their children, which means that in general, situations like this are always abuses of that power and just plain abuse. This may be the 1% that isn't though, since again, they had no normal father/daughter relationship and both are adults. In other words there was no real power dynamic in play (at least the way the story tells it). Now one could argue that by merely being her father, despite not raising her, puts him in that position of power automatically, and while I'm not sure if thats true I can't say it shouldn't be considered at least.

Again, I'm not saying that these 2 aren't the exception to the rule, lets give them that for the sake of discussion, but I would be worried if people weren't going "ew" to this, because in general that is the right response to hearing "Father & Daughter having baby". Usually it's not such a... um... "romantic" experience.

HowDroll said:

I'm not defending it at all. I'm saying that, even though it's interesting (actually, super icky, if I think about myself and my own father) to think about, when it comes down to it I don't really care what they do

Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused here. Either this couple should have a right to their sexual relationship, which means everyone else needs to deal with it regardless of their personal squick factor. Or they should not have the right, in which case they've done something rather bad. I got the distinct impression you were defending their right to have that relationship.

Or did you mean you have no problem with the relationship, only with the child?

Espy , when I say consenting adults, I'm not just talking about age, but an emotional level of maturity. So again, two consenting adults who aren't harming anyone (not a parent "abusing the situation"), have at it. I do however feel it's right to condemn the actions of those who do decide to abuse. I don't think I'll discuss anything else on that aspect of the conversation.

As long as the kid has 12 fingers and toes it'll be okay.


Kidding! It's disgusting.

Dave said:

As long as the kid has 12 fingers and toes it'll be okay.

Click to expand...

?

SeraRelm said:

Espy , when I say consenting adults, I'm not just talking about age, but an emotional level of maturity. So again, two consenting adults who aren't harming anyone (not a parent "abusing the situation"), have at it.

Click to expand...

Which I agree with, I'm just saying that the reason people are having a hard time with this is because it's almost impossible for this sort of relationship to not be abuse on some level. Like I said, this may very well be the exception to the rule, and the article certainly seems to imply it is. Considering the facts I would personally say they can go nuts for all I care. However I would not be surprised to find that despite the lack of traditional father/daughter roles here there is still part of that power dynamic at play.

Again, I'm NOT saying this is abuse. I am saying there are some very, very big and very normal power-dynamics that make this a hard thing to get around for most people and they may or may not be at play here. It's pretty hard to know without a psychological evaluation on them.

Edit: I'd love to hear MindDetective's thoughts on this.

TommiR said:

I'm a bit confused here. Either this couple should have a right to their sexual relationship, which means everyone else needs to deal with it regardless of their personal squick factor. Or they should not have the right, in which case they've done something rather bad. I got the distinct impression you were defending their right to have that relationship.

Or did you mean you have no problem with the relationship, only with the child?

Click to expand...

Eh, there's a difference to me between actively defending it ("yay, incest!") and defending their right to do what they want by saying it's not the government's place to tell them they can't. I'm not going to defend the Westboro Baptist Church for being a bunch of asshats, but I'm going to defend their right to asshattery.

Maybe it's just semantics.

There is a difference.

That difference is named Icarus.

Icarus liked underaged poon not related poon.


I feel dirty writing that.

LittleSin said:

Icarus liked underaged poon not related poon.


I feel dirty writing that.

Click to expand...

Thats right, I get my "creeps of Halforums" confused sometimes. I just lump them all into Icarus.

HowDroll said:

Eh, there's a difference to me between actively defending it ("yay, incest!") and defending their right to do what they want by saying it's not the government's place to tell them they can't. I'm not going to defend the Westboro Baptist Church for being a bunch of asshats, but I'm going to defend their right to asshattery.

Maybe it's just semantics.

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably semantics. Thanks for the clarification.

Espy, you're going to find those power plays in many relationships, regardless of genetic relations. That's not to say it's right or wrong, but it does seem like just an excuse if that's the defining characteristic in someone's argument against the act.

Espy said:

Thats right, I get my "creeps of Halforums" confused sometimes. I just lump them all into Icarus.

Click to expand...

Of course you will, but I think that that power dynamic in particular (parent/child) is probably at the root of most peoples discomfort even if it's expressed as "ew". I don't think it's one that should be ignored either, I think it's a perfectly valid reason to be concerned, although like I said, I don't know how much of it exists in a case like this which is... unusual to say the least.

I'd think that's partially true, though a large part of it is likely the social stigma aspect of the act as well. It's ingrained into most societies that the act is abhorrent and thusly, many people find it so.

And Adam , I miss that meme.

I remember reading some journal articles when I was an undergrad in physical anthropology about incest taboo. Mathias would be able to speak more clearly on it, but it seems that it is present in many animal species. The evolutionary advantage of the "Ew" reaction is to increase the gene pool. Or if you look at it from a natural selection point of view, those who branched out were selected for.

Lots of women date someone they view at least partially as a father type figure, and no one bats an eye at that.

fade said:

I remember reading some journal articles when I was an undergrad in physical anthropology about incest taboo. Mathias would be able to speak more clearly on it, but it seems that it is present in many animal species. The evolutionary advantage of the "Ew" reaction is to increase the gene pool. Or if you look at it from a natural selection point of view, those who branched out were selected for.

Click to expand...

And the deleterious genes from incest were weeded out through natual selection. Though that doesn't really occur anymore.

And as someone in no danger of running into that genetic issue personally, as well as being on the fringe of what society deems a proper relationship, perhaps the incest folks don't bother me as much. I don't think the human race is in danger of under-breeding at the moment.

We might as well link to the Incest Taboo wiki page. I think most of us experience a little ickiness reading about stories like this. It is a combination of what Espy was saying (incest is generally associated with abuse) and a genetic predisposition to avoid inbreeding. That wiki article I linked is an interesting read and it suggests there is a strong cultural component to the taboo. Certainly American culture frowns on incest a great deal, and depictions of non-abusive incest in pop culture (pretty rare, really, but consider Game of Thrones) are intentionally meant to be provocative in a way that evokes negative feelings. It's tough to disentangle the culture and the genetics here, since there are few experiments you could conduct to test it.

So is it wrong? It depends on what your basis for morality is. If it is the bible, well, Espy could answer that better than I. I've always favored a morality based on survival of one's genetic group (a moral code which I won't go into great detail on). And it seems like this case would violate such a code. At the same time, it ensures those genes get passed on, so maybe it doesn't. Pretty murky, really. Even though figmentPez was reading a lot into the story, I suspect he is somewhat correct in assuming there are some psychological issues in play, maybe even something simple like depression or fear of abandonment, which makes it all that much murkier.

MindDetective said:

So is it wrong? It depends on what your basis for morality is. If it is the bible, well, Espy could answer that better than I. I've always favored a morality based on survival of one's genetic group (a moral code which I won't go into great detail on).

Click to expand...

I expect there are psychological issues at play in most romantic relationships though.

SeraRelm said:

I expect there are psychological issues at play in most romantic relationships though.

Click to expand...

Haha, you don't say!

Adam said:

Click to expand...

So what happens when the baby is two weeks from being due, and the guy bails just like he did to her mom?

Adam said:

Click to expand...

Do I have to?? Basically, I think of morality as derived from evolutionary pressures. The implications of this are that moral choices (murder, theft, incest, etc.) are strongest (in terms of taboos, for example) for oneself and one's immediate relatives, but drop off as you get further from your immediate genetic relationships. Obviously these are predispositions and not absolutes, as fratricide and the like still exist, meaning these predispositions can be overcome by circumstances. So "protecting one's own" is the general rule of morality. However, humans are all 99.xxx% related, so in fact our moral code extends to much of the human race rather easily. After that, it is not difficult (though less typical) to extend the same principles to other species. It then becomes merely a matter of in-group/out-group differences. If you consider all humans to be related (and thus, "your own"), then you will treat them with the moral code that pressures us towards preserving immediate family. Alternatively, consider when Europeans considered Native Americans and Africans as another species, or the racist treatment of black Americans post-slavery (and pre-slavery, for that matter). If you extend your inclusiveness to other species (thus empathizing with non-human animals) then that basic moral code extends ever further. Many do not throw their net so wide, though, so morality remains localized to immediate family (and friends, and community, but often not much beyond that...thus, war, etc.) And there you have it.

MindDetective said:

Do I have to?? Basically, I think of morality as derived from evolutionary pressures. The implications of this are that moral choices (murder, theft, incest, etc.) are strongest (in terms of taboos, for example) for oneself and one's immediate relatives, but drop off as you get further from your immediate genetic relationships. Obviously these are predispositions and not absolutes, as fratricide and the like still exist, meaning these predispositions can be overcome by circumstances. So "protecting one's own" is the general rule of morality. However, humans are all 99.xxx% related, so in fact our moral code extends to much of the human race rather easily. After that, it is not difficult (though less typical) to extend the same principles to other species. It then becomes merely a matter of in-group/out-group differences. If you consider all humans to be related (and thus, "your own"), then you will treat them with the moral code that pressures us towards preserving immediate family. Alternatively, consider when Europeans considered Native Americans and Africans as another species, or the racist treatment of black Americans post-slavery (and pre-slavery, for that matter). If you extend your inclusiveness to other species (thus empathizing with non-human animals) then that basic moral code extends ever further. Many do not throw their net so wide, though, so morality remains localized to immediate family (and friends, and community, but often not much beyond that...thus, war, etc.) And there you have it.

Click to expand...

Interesting. "My brother is my keeper" as a genetic characteristic using the "fear of The Other" baser instict to explain cultural animosity. Glad you expanded! (For several reasons, one of which is that the concept of morality based on genetics is....touchy)

Adam said:

Interesting. "My brother is my keeper" as a genetic characteristic using the "fear of The Other" baser instict to explain cultural animosity. Glad you expanded! (For several reasons, one of which is that the concept of morality based on genetics is....touchy)

Click to expand...

That's the truth!

I seem to remember reading that the "icky" feeling we get from the idea of sex with a relative has more to do with growing up around those people rather than sharing a genetic link. Many foster children will have a similar feeling of "ew" to the idea of having sex with a foster brother/sister, even though they don't share a genetic link. If that's true, it's not surprising that people who are related but never knew each other might feel an attraction.

Still, it seems gross to me. Blech.

Tress said:

I seem to remember reading that the "icky" feeling we get from the idea of sex with a relative has more to do with growing up around those people rather than sharing a genetic link. Many foster children will have a similar feeling of "ew" to the idea of having sex with a foster brother/sister, even though they don't share a genetic link. If that's true, it's not surprising that people who are related but never knew each other might feel an attraction.

Still, it seems gross to me. Blech.

Click to expand...

I think it's called the Westermarck Effect.

I love it when MindDetective answers the MD signal.

Hey, don't go abusing that thing! Those giant light bulbs are expensive.

Plus when you turn it on, MothDetective shows up, too.

SeraRelm said:

?

Click to expand...

That might be the most appropriate picture post this thread will ever see.

At least the girl is not too good for her own family.

Has anybody made a Craster joke yet?

GasBandit said:

Has anybody made a Craster joke yet?

Click to expand...

Geez. Do you think we're geeks or something?

And that kids, is How I Met Your Mother

Of course, the first time I was actually going to use the "Really? Really?!" thing and now its gone.