Incest - Sleepwalkers (1992) Discussion

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spookyhead 20 years ago

yeah but cats can inbreed and their kittens will be fine. are the sleepwalkers reproductive organs more like humans or cats?

reply

[–] COTCgirl 20 years ago

Okay in the context on the movie the "Sleepwalkers" feed each other this way. The males suck the life force out of virgin girls/women. Then the way they feed the women sleepwalkers is by having sex with them. Ergo, Charles and Mary are the last of their kind so the only way for Charles to keep his mother alive is to feed and then have sex with her to feed her.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dan-508 20 years ago

Well played, Clerks

reply

[–] adrianajesperson 20 years ago

actually any animal, including humans can inbreed and produce a viable off spring, it is a common misconception that inbreeding will immediately cause malformations in an animal. in fact for any organism to suffer in any effect of incest it must happen over succesive generations. it has to do wit genetics, if a brother and sister commit incest and a child is born it will be normal, but if that child goes on to have more offspring incestually, than the genetic diseases that are inherent in related family groups build up and eventually cause deformity. any population of organisms that reproduce sexually require new genetic material to keep that population healthy;
on an interesting side not:washington state incest laws exclude grandparents.
o.s im sorry if my explanation of genetics is a bit off or if i didnt explain things to well, im reaaly wasted right now.
"The room at the top of the tower is empty, I know it- Randall Flagg/Walter/ the Ageless Stranger

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RobBase086-1 16 years ago

You have a very good point about this but it is sick to be honest with you.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show! www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/

reply

[–] Hythlodaeus 20 years ago

Are you trying to be funny? It has nothing to do with the organs but the number of damaged chromosomes in the organism. Humans are about the only animals that can't inbreed and have normal offspring, I don't know exactly why that is but it's probably something to do with societal pressures that causes selective breeding already so inbreeding is too much causing mental and often physical retardation

reply

[–] ksaltkill 17 years ago

Actually, no animal can interbreed safely. The whole point of sexual vs. asexual reproduction is to introduce new genes into the gene pool. When 101 Dalmations first came out, the demand for dalmation puppies skyrocketed. Puppy mills had to inbreed to keep up with demand, and you started getting viscious, strange, and even stupid dogs. No animal designed for sexual reproduction will fail to show signs of inbreeding.

reply

[–] smokehill retrievers 15 years ago

It's hard to keep track of all the nonsense being perpetuated here.

Inbreeding (a term generally misapplied) had very little to do with the disastrous effect on Dalmatians (and many other breeds) when that breed became the yuppie "pet flavor of the month." Many other breeds were at least temporarily ruined by the same jump in popularity -- Dobermans, Golden Retrievers, St Bernards, English Bulldogs, Shepherds ... but usually it can be fixed in a few generations once the problem gets really bad. Bad breeders & puppy mills will still produce crap dogs, but most of the breeders know they need to fix their problem, and do it (eventually).

My advice to everyone is to ignore everything you hear about "inbreeding" unless you hear it from a genetecist, or a very, very experienced livestock breeder (which includes canines). And I specifically EXCLUDE anyone breeding for the dog show ring since health is a rather minor factor in that peculiar little circle -- in modern times a "successful" show breeder must concentrate on breeding a dog that only looks a certain way (which changes every few years and varies between areas), and that will prance around a 40-foot circle without biting the judge or starting a dogfight. Nothing else counts, including overall health & longevity. A line of pretty dogs that mostly gets liver cancer & dies by age 5 can still win in the ring & produce puppies to sell.

Not that there aren't intelligent & responsible show breeders ... but they're probably about 5% or less of the total. It's the nature of that business, sadly.

However, dog breeders who have bred generations of performance dogs, such as field trial dogs, still have to concentrate on health, stamina, intelligence and performance, not just cranking out four-legged, hairy Barbie dolls.

Livestock breeders -- successful ones, at least -- invariably go back to what is called "line breeding." In human terms, that includes breeding back to close relatives -- doubled-up grandfathers & great-grandfathers commonly appear in pedigrees. It's the way you double up on the positive traits in the really spectacular dogs. If you check high-stakes racehorses and other performance horses, you find the same thing.

You do have to pay close attention to the various traits and health of everyone in the line breeding, since you can double up on bad health (and traits) as well as good.

My current field trial dog, which cost almost $6,000 as a puppy, has a grandfather on the father's side that is the same as the great-gf on the bitch's side. That common (and close) ancestor was also the hottest field dog produced in the last 40 years, and virtually all his kids & grandkids that competed became Field Champions. Working dogs are the scholar-athletes of the dog world -- a combination of Einstein and an Olympic Decathlon champion. Show dogs are the Miss America of the dog world.

Talk to horse and cattle breeders -- and if they weren't right in doing intelligent line-breeding, they'd have been out of business long ago.

The flat statement that "inbreeding" (as commonly interpreted) always results in damaged offspring is simply nonsense. It just depends on what's in the chromosomes, and the relative likelihood that negatives will outstrip positives.

End of lesson. It took me 8 years of college and 40 years in livestock & dog breeding to learn it.

reply

[–] Hythlodaeus 20 years ago

It's still nasty to see. I didn't pay much attention to the movie but I did see it in the theater and about all I remember is when the guy takes his mother - everyone in the theater groaned in disgust.

reply

[–] adrianajesperson 20 years ago

the two best scenes in this movie:

brian crause to mr fallows: your right mr fallows, people should keep there hands to themselves(we hear a sickening crack off screen)heres yours(brian tosses mr fallows SEVERED hand in his lap, brians face turns into a catlike expression,litteraly, and chases mr fallows into the woods)
mr fallows:(running down a hill, turns his head at his pursuor) i'm sorry.

brian krause:(shoves a pencil into a cops ear and lets its head fall to the ground, driving the shaft further into the cops head) ha ha ha, cop kabob!

Flowers bloom and die,
Wind brings butterflies or snow,
A stone won't notice

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 12 years ago

BUT, they are not actually mother and son. It's just the idea of incest that you're reacting to. Get over it.

Besides, they did worse in the Bible.

reply

[–] aimserz1227 20 years ago

All I can say is that this is one f'ed up movie. A corn cob? And what about the part where the crazy cat-woman bites off the officers fingers, or the part where she impales the sherriff on a PICKET FENCE??? Seriously. Get real.

reply

[–] cloud9surfer 20 years ago

*hahaha* Inbreeding is not a -mental- thing. The ramifications that come from inbreeding in humans isn't because of selective breeding or societal pressures. It's the way we're engineered. It's a clashing of the chromosomes.

If you were separated from a sibling at birth, and then somehow in some way met that sibling, fell in love, slept together, and had kids, they would still suffer the same birth defects than if you had known that was your sibling your whole life and had kids with them anyway.

C9S

reply

[–] WesternEyes05 20 years ago

I actually know a girl who has cerebal palsy and some other mental conditions and her parents are first cousins. She is a product of inbreeding of some sort and she does have physical and mental disabilities now because of that. However, her older brother has no issues and is very normal. I also saw a special on tv once about young girls who were raped and survived, and there was a 13 year old girl who was repeatedly raped by her own father and she ended up pregnant and have a son who was born with multiple handicaps. I believe he was blind and he was born brittle bone disease and there were other complications too. It was very sad. Wild animals do inbreed though. Probably only because they don't know any better. Inbreeding is one of the most revolting things in my opinion, but wild animals do it all the time.

reply

[–] chronicbliss2 18 years ago

For first cousins, in a family with no history of inbreeding, the chances of any bad effects on a child are minimal, about 2.9% as opposed to 2% for unrelated strangers. Among closer relatives, or multiple successive generations inbreeding, it depends entirely on the family's genetics. The problems only arise when the family has recessive genes for problems. For instance, say theres a 10% chance your kid, based on your genes, will be retarded in some way. Well if you have a kid with your brother, then the odds go up to 20% because now it runs in both sides. If a family somehow had a completely clean gene pool, with NO diseases or birth defects in their dna at all, it would be safer for them to breed with each other than with the general public. Because then nothing would ever run in the kids' family: completely clean family medical history. But first cousins, since they only share one set of grandparents, are pretty safe. That's 2 sets of repeating dna out of 8, only one quarter related. They have the dna of the other grandparents to dilute it and possibly override any bad recessive traits.

reply

[–] nekosudachi 20 years ago

in old times inbreed was part of egytps society for maintaining a pure line of pharaons.

reply

[–] rice_cori 19 years ago

Just because a culture may practice incest in other countries and even some States in America even, does not make it right. Incest is VERY WRONG and it's even mentioned in the Bible that having sex with close relatives is a sin. You'll be teased if people found out for instance that your mom is actually your sister even though she gave birth to you. In other words the whole family will be confused because all the roles have been mixed up and mismatched. If you think that incest is okay, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

reply

[–] bulletproofclod 19 years ago

i believe that the sleepwalkers are kind of like vampires somewhat and maybe (dont quote me on this) the mother 'made' the son so the two of them having sex wouldnt be necessarily incest, they could not be blood related...i only saw the crappy movie, i didnt read the book.

I made a promise to a lady and I intend to keep it.

Send the lady my regards.

reply

[–] wcheers97 19 years ago

No, I think she is his biological mother.

As for incest automatically producing retarded kids, it doesn't. Over several generations, it does produce deformities, in any animal species.

Purebred dogs are often bred mother to son, father to daughter, etc and after the generations, a lot of these dogs are indeed born with all sorts of deformities. Mutts are the healthiest dogs because they are not so inbred.

One thing helping dogs and cats out is that females will do multiple males, so when the mother gives birth to a batch of kittens or dogs, different ones in the same batch will have different fathers.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doodoohead 19 years ago

I thought they were a little too close at the beginning, but when they started kissing each other that's when it started to become really disgusting :P :P

reply

[–] xxroxyxdogxx 19 years ago

i know they have to survive but is incest really nessacery? and the beginning of the movie was really sad when all the cats were dead and hanging from the tree. im a dog person but i have cats adn that was just sad.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 12 years ago

LOL. Jesus. People are just too sensitive and insecure today. It's a fantasy / fictional movie. Nothing to get so worked up over.

Besides, at least these two fictional mother / son lovers actually cared about each other and were actually loyal to each other. That's more than I can say for a lot of family members today.

reply

[–] chronicbliss2 18 years ago

The bible?! Go back and check out what Lot's daughters pulled after their mother was turned into a pillar of salt.

reply

[–] kikidi 17 years ago

erhm .. rice_cori isn't there a part where a father sleeps with his daughters ?

I am a summer soup , oh ..

reply

[–] mrbruto 16 years ago

by rice_cori (Sat Dec 10 2005 11:12:17)

Just because a culture may practice incest in other countries and even some States in America even, does not make it right. Incest is VERY WRONG and it's even mentioned in the Bible that having sex with close relatives is a sin. You'll be teased if people found out for instance that your mom is actually your sister even though she gave birth to you. In other words the whole family will be confused because all the roles have been mixed up and mismatched. If you think that incest is okay, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

Yea, maybe but I don't know what you mean by close relatives. Are cousins close? I may be a bit off and I don't remember exactly where the passages are to check, but mainly sexual relations between parents, children and aunts and uncles was/is forbidden but after that (aside from fornication and adultery regardless of who it is, bestiality and foreigners who did not become a part of Israel by conversion) it was fair game who you got married to, including cousins. A cousin was the closest relative you could be with and it doesn't necessarily produce problems, especially when you consider the general health of the Israelites because of cleanliness and dietary laws.

Besides, running the risk of being teased is hardly a reason not to do something. People may tease for two cousins being married but as far as I know that's legit. This was and still is to some extent a normal practice. Not to mention marrying someone who has gone through puberty but may not be a local legal age for consent or marriage. I'm not suggesting people break the law, but a law forbidding something doesn't necessarily make wrong whatever it is that the law forbids. On top of that, 16 is legal in most states in the USA even though people may have a problem with it or may think that the age of consent is 18 when overall it is not. Even Joseph who married Mary was probably at least 20 years older than Mary and on top of that Mary was probably between 13 and 15. I think she would have had to have reached puberty though. According to God, it isn't wrong regardless of what any man-made law says but that's another topic.

I've read that the hang up about cousin marriages actually started with Roman Catholicism when Pope Gregory outlawed cousin marriages to keep wealth from staying within families so that there would be no powerful families to compete with the Roman Catholic church. Then add to that some spreading of incomplete explanation of scientific reasons why cousins should not be married and Joe average who is a sheep and never questions anything takes it for granted and badabing-badaboom you have the stigmatization of marriage between relatives you have today, which is often the same recipe for just about every misconception these days.

My own maternal grandparents were cousins (maybe second cousins or once removed however that goes) and nobody was retarded although some people that don't like me might say I am :-P

Isaiah 5:20, Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

by chronicbliss2 (Thu Nov 16 2006 06:40:05)

The bible?! Go back and check out what Lot's daughters pulled after their mother was turned into a pillar of salt.

Lot's daughters only knew one world and they thought it had ended. I'm not saying that to condone what they did, but just to show that they must have known better and acted foolishly under the circumstances. Just because the Bible is giving an account of something that happened does not mean it is condoning it and for some reason people never seem to have that register in their brains.

On a side note, Lot's wife didn't just turn into a pillar of salt because she turned her head to look back. She turned to salt because she actually turned (went) back and was consumed with the sinners. It's an analogy for repentance and the consequences for not doing so.

=======

Anyway, I really don't care. This is a movie about cat-like people. Real world doesn't necessarily apply here guys.

Maria la Portuguesa & some family photos
http://thesentinel.fcpages.com/

reply

[–] TheFatDruidofNacyl 13 years ago

If incest is wrong in the Bible then how did you get all the humans from Adam and Eve? As well as Noah and his family?

Come visit my blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 11 years ago

only true if you have silly and unnecessarely burdaining social family status or follow only new testament.
for everyone else Incest is bad for one purpose only - higher chance of genetic mutation. That is for children, which means that if we use modern precautions agiasnt makingchildren it becomes just sex.

You know, there definatelly is something wrong with people who think that they can tell people what not to do in their private bedrooms just because they have different opinion.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] RachelRobot 18 years ago

wcheers97, yeah animals are whores.

reply

[–] gallileo60 18 years ago

Oh its not that abhorant, just seems that way to you, cuz that is how you were brought up...Also, inbreeding does not always cause problem...Lots of times in the past, Royal lines were inbred.....Its all in an induviduals perception...I woulda for sure done Mrs Brady.......LOL...

Better Living Thru Chemistry

reply

[–] Alphax 18 years ago

Actually, there are many studies showing that inbreeding leads to many genetic problems.

In fact, just recently in the news, there was a report about a Mormon sect that is having problems with their kids. This group is very small, and has been marrying and breeding within their small circle for so long that the blood line has been homogenized. Their kids are now having wide-spread problems of convulsions, mental retardation, and child-hood death.

And as for royalty doing it, as a sign it caused no problems...I suggest you read some history books. There were alot of insane people in the royal heritages, and many scholars point to the very fact that they were inbreeding as the cause.

All of that said, I think the two consenting family members could have a loving and sexual relationship with each other. It's not common, and most people think it's sick...but it IS possible. The average person is just too narrow and closed minded to accept or understand life styles that are divergant from their own.

reply

[–] gallileo60 18 years ago

Dont bother me one bit, if they want to let em.........Aint no worse than being gay, or any other deviant behavior.

Better Living Thru Chemistry

reply

[–] chronicbliss2 18 years ago

Okay, now I'm not about to say mother-son sex is beatiful, or that it's not. The idea grosses me out but not on any logical level, more because how could you see the kid you cleaned up after as a peer let alone a sexual being, or the woman who raised you? But I get tired of people always equating incest with rape. Rape is rape, no matter if you're related to the rapist or not. Same with molestation. Incest doesn't mean daddy diddled the kids, it means sexual interactions between two related people. Now, the reason I say this, and why I've actually thought of this, is because I come from a pretty small area, and my mother is adopted from nearbyy, and my father and his brothers were all sluts back in the day. I found out my senior year that a guy I went to school with was my half-brother. I have had to grow up with the knowledge that any guy I dated could turn out to be my brother or cousin. And I'll tell you, the idea of hooking up with one of my maternal cousins, no blood relation but we spent Christmases together and stuff, is disgusting. But the idea of finding out that my boyfriend is my half-brother? More sad than anything else. But it bothers me that people always talk about "victims of incest". If it's rape then just say rape! Incest, by definition, doesn't have to have a victim!

reply

[–] BigRich 18 years ago

Spanking the monkey http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111252/

-------
Do the Lynndie - http://badgas.co.uk/lynndie/

reply

[–] ZoneFighter 18 years ago

I just finished watching the movie. Charles mother said they were not the last of their kind that she could sense others existed. They were having sex before Charles fed on anyone. She kept harping on him getting Tanya because she was starving. Mother and son just lusted after each other. It was disgusting.

I think she'd have fed on Charles the same way he tried to feed on Tanya. They only thing sexual about it is it would look like kissing.

Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.
-- Benjamin Franklin.

reply

[–] brossman 18 years ago

Watch in the mirror and you can see a light under them. Maybe he is feeding her. (Just a guess)

reply

[–] TheFatDruidofNacyl 13 years ago

I was thinking the same thing.

Come visit my blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com

reply

[–] user-15280 18 years ago

As long as the mom is hot I'm all right with it in movies.

I had more of a problem buying Charles Brady as a hetero, much less a shapeshifting sex vampyre.

reply

[–] RogueKyne 17 years ago

As twisted as a mother and son doing it together may be, it's kind of understandable in their situation. Their race is supposedly on the brink of exstinction, and they've been moving to area to area for a long time without ever seeing another one of their kind in ages. This kind of life would probably make them feel very lonely enough to turn to eachother for comfort and love in a different way despite being blood-related. It's fairly common fact that when two people find themselves very alone together that they just might become lovers, no matter what the circumstances, so they won't feel so lonely anymore.

Or, you know, Stephen King just likes using twisted stuff like this to screw with us for no reason.

-------------------------
I hate close-minded sub purists...

reply