Badmovies.org Forum

Ill try to keep this clean; 

Ive been thinking; If you had a clone of yourself -an exact copy with the same memories and experience as yourself, exactly the same in every way- could you sleep with yourself? its kind of a tricky question. people have different ways of rationalizing this. Its you - its another person. its incest - but you often touch yourself.  does touching a clone of yourself make you gay? theres all kinds of moral issues here, people seem to get offended by this concept. I dont know what i would do, it is kind of uncomfortable to think about. I wonder; would i even like myself? what if the other me is cooler than me? could i kick my ass?

HAh, I spent my most of my non married life having sex with myself,.  Anyway, does a gender swich happe too?  I wouldn't find me attractive otherwise.
=Ed

More like masturbation.

If you think of a clone of yourself as an identical twin, I guess that makes it incest.

A clone is someone who shares your genetic code, as identical twins do. That doesn't make them the same person.

Sci-fi author John Varley played with this question in some novel, but I can't remember which one. In his universe medical technology is very advanced and people are always tinkering with their own bodies, including switching sexes every few years. So the main character does end up sleeping with a clone of the opposite sex.

You should check out the short story "Reflections" by Andrew Murphy. It's an excellent little story about what would happen if cloning was widespread.

"Reflections" (http://www.co2comics.com/pages/co2_reflections.html)

(looks at self in mirror)  I'd hit that.

"sleeping with your own clone = incest?" (I'm very confused)

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7905/karatekid2drums.gif) (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/karatekid2drums.gif/)

[Looks at self in mirror] "Bleurrrgggghhhhhh! I'd kill that!"  :buggedout:

Technically correct.
My first reaction was the same as akiratubo though.

The Ophiuchi Hotline, I think.

Cannot think of a reason why I would and a good few reasons why *not*.

The perspective at least would be interesting, though I am not sure I could handle it, if it were disappointing.  Could always rationalise that it was 'not me' I suppose.  Could I kick my own butt?  Wouldn't like to try!  :wink:

I've been asking people for years if sleeping with your clone is gay or masturbation. Now someone has to toss incest into the picture which makes the question that much more difficult to ponder.

I think the more pertinent question would be: If I slept with my wife and her clone in a menage-a-trois, would it be cheating?  :teddyr:

Why hasn't ghouck posted on this yet ?

He's busy... uhmm... contemplating the issue.

Yeah, that's it.

 :wink:

OK, all joking aside, I have gave some serious thought into some of the questions asked. Well all but the why hasn't ghouck posted on this yet" question.
First of all, someone asked about if a gender switch occurred. This is not possible if the DNA is from a female but possible if the DNA is from a male. I know it sounds sexist but it has to do with basic chromosomes. Males have both a X and a Y chromosome while females have two X chromosomes. So there is no way they could create a male clone from a female DNA donor since there is no Y chromosome to trigger male characteristics.
Second is the question would a person want to sleep with their clone. This would actually have to do with a person's sexual orientation. If a person is sexually attracted to people of the clone's gender (which would most likely be their own excluding a way to switch gender) they would very likely to desire their clone as a partner. Otherwise they would consider they clone as their best friend.
The reason why is something called Genetic Sexual Attraction. Documented cases of this have been found in siblings who grew up appart and later met as adults. It is because their formative years between the age of birth to 6 were not spent together. Due to their sameness as adults they find themselves drawn to each other as soulmates.
Now that I may of weirded some of you out with that fact, lets move to the main question. Like the afore mentioned couples who later found out they are siblings, sex with your clone would be considered incest. Odds are laws would recognise a clone as a sibling to the person or a dependant similar to a child. In fact cloning could even be considered a form of asexual reproduction.
Also since your clone would most likely be the same gender as you, it would also be considered homosexuality because by definition, sex between two beings of the same gender is considered this.
If the clone has the same memories as the DNA donor, it would react in the same manner. It would have the same weaknesses and strength. However it would not have the same experiences as the DNA donor. This is because those can not be recreated in a short period of time if it were to be an adult one could consider sexual relations with. It would have memories of the experiences of the donor but it would not of lived those experiences first hand.
Your clone would not be cooler than you or be any more skilled in fighting than you. In fact you would like your clone even if you were not sexually attracted to it. In fact you would find your clone to be one of the best people you met because it would think and act the same way you do for a while.
That would change after creation because it would immediately begin having it's own memories and experiences as it began it's own life. As time progresses those experiences would shape it's life as the ones you have without your clone will shape yours. So from the moment it awakens it will stop actually being a copy of you and become a new life separate from your but with similar DNA.
finally, if you did clone your spouse and had sex with it, it would be considered cheating. However if you are having a menage-a-tois with your spouse's clone and your spouse, then I am sure they are not going to complain since they are an active part in that and are also cheating on you with their clone.

Violence is NOT the answer DS. . .

I just can't see myself doing...myself. Well, in the traditional five-fingered way, yes, but not a copy of me. I don't think it's that doing it is gay, but I do think you'd have to be gay to seriously want to do it. Whether it's my exact duplicate or not, the fact is, I'd be no more turned on by myself than I would any hairy, fat, bald ape of a man. I look like Tor Johnson with a slightly nicer face. Not my type at all.

As to the incest, I can't quite decide whether a clone is more of a brother or a son, even assuming this clone is somehow grown to the same age. The former is only slightly less disturbing than the latter, so maybe it isn't relevant.

I beg to differ: it may well be an individual 'thing' but I am pretty sure I would find someone *just*like*me* to be difficult to tolerate for long.
There can be only one.

As for any skills: we are assuming an identical age, experience and fitness level as well?  Because I am also quite certain (though it pains me to say it) that *I* at say the age of 24 or so (actually, 28 was a very good year...) could mop up the floor with the current 'me'. Condition has to count for a lot.

How about sleeping with someone else's clone?  :buggedout:

That's true. People do get mad at others who remind them of things they don't like about themselves. They unconsciously see their own faults in others. And that's just people who share certain traits. I can't imagine what it would be like, living with an exact copy of myself. We might get along like peas in a pod, but I'm more inclined to think we'd fight like cats and dogs, at least after spending a while together. In hindsight, I think a lot of people I've found really intolerable over the years were more like me than I would have admitted at the time.

That is true, a younger version of one's self would be in better shape. However it would not be a true copy of a person. Sure it would have the same DNA but without being the same age, it would be more like an offspring than a clone. So while you might be able to call it a clone, it would not be a true clone of the DNA donor.
The most intense debate I can see with cloning has to do with the question, "Is it really you or someone else?" This opens up a discussion in the mental and spiritual aspects of a clone.
I know some might claim it's a souless monster while others might claim it's just another person and deny the existence of a soul to begin with. Lets set that aside and look at the mind however. I prefer to avoid a religious debate because no one is ever going to 100% agree on that subject anyway.
At issue is the mind. Sure your clone might have the same memories as you and even believe it is you. However it would not be you and would be suffering from the delusion that it was you. Yep, your clone would be delusional by the psychiatric sense of the term because it would have the false belief that it actually lived the events that took place in your life. to compound this delusion is the fact it's memories and features would resemble your's despite none of the events in your life ever actually happen to your clone.
This leads me to believe that even if possible, creating an exact clone of yourself would be considered cruel by some and even warrent marking clones in some way to denote they are not the original. Much like we mark photocopies of certain documents and copies. Otherwise your clone could comit the ultimate form of idenity theft against you.

If there was a clone of me - no, I would not be the least bit interested in having sex with that person.  He'd probably be the most boring person I could think of to even hang around with actually.  The whole thing that makes people intersting are their differences.  If I just wanted to agree with someone all the time, I can think instead of talk.

You think?  I've always wondered if someone ran into a person who was an exact copy of themselves if they get along or not, especially if said person had low self-esteem and a lot of self image issues.  Sort of the like the way same parents treat their kids like crap besides they see in them characteristics of themselves they don't like. 

I'm reminded of the series of Calvin and Hobbes comics where Calvin creates a duplicate of himself to do his homework and the duplicate promptly decides to ignore that command and go outside and play.  Hobbes says, "Well, it's a duplicate all right."  Calvin goes, "Are you kidding?!?  That guy is a total JERK!" 

:)

I don't know if it'd be incest but if you somehow managed to get yourself pregnant (hey, whatever) I think you'd be in for one heckuva messed-up kid...

If you're both clones, wouldn't that kid come out exactly like you?

On a similar note, I recently read an article on MSN about how society needs to lighten up on relationships between first cousins. It was kinda creepy, and they were backing it up with scientific facts. They polished it off with "If you're old enough that you can't or don't plan on having kids, there's no reason not to". By that logic, the same can said about brother and sister. Yuck. . .

If you really want to get into some warped thinking along those lines, read up into Genetic Sexual Attraction. Some claim it shouldn't even be considered incest despite it meets the base criteria for it. There are even people who claim it's acceptable and use the logic that as long as both are adults that people should be allowed to marry even if they are siblings or parent and child. There is even a case in Austrialia where a father and daughter carried on as husband and wife including having kids.
Now to the question of having kids with yourself, I cans ee how that would lead to problems geneticly. Technically the child would be a clone of you as well because woudl woudl share the same DNA however it might pick up two sets dormant traits  which can result in simular birth defects as those seen in reproductive unions between siblings and parent/child unions

No. DNA chains do a lot of swapping around/recombination during meiosis. So if somehow two clones could sexually reproduce, then the resulting child, while having 100% of the DNA, would not have the DNA in the same combination. You'd probably end up with something vary similar, yet noticeably different.