Is Ygritte a rapist?

[Orm]

6 minutes ago, R2D said:

It's still seen as wrong to hurt your wife in bed (look at the reactions to Ramsay - fArya).

 

Well, did Rob brutalise Cersei? Did he leave scars? I seem to remember he squeezed her boobs really hard and finished quickly on her vagina........ And it was on weekly basis for heirs according to Cersei instead of Rob being a malicious rapist although drunk......

Besides there was research done which said that sexual abuse 90% depends on how good looking the man is....... And since Robert when he married Cersei is described to be ' Something out of a maiden's fantasy' I don't think Rob would be guilty of rape if he married almost anyone but Cersei............

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, R2D said:

Ok good. You acknowledge it's also bad.

Even if they like each other that doesn't change the power dynamic.

And I never claimed it did. I just pointed out that marriages where men use the legal and factual power they have over their wives to hurt and torment them are much worse than those were this doesn't happen.

1 hour ago, R2D said:

Wrong. Ever heard of incestual grooming? Even if your sibling is just 2 years older you won't know if you were subconsciously influenced.

That you can say from any sort of relationship that goes back to your childhood days. If you fall in love with a neighbor a couple of years older you played in the sandbox since kindergarden were you groomed for that, or did it occur naturally?

And it is not that siblings in a Westerosi setting grow up at the same places. They would meet at table and stuff, but else they would spend their lives pretty much apart, with the boys doing boys things and the girls doing girls things.

1 hour ago, R2D said:

Maybe Jaeherys groomed Alysanne and Baelon groomed Alyssa? Renly thought books were for maesters and him owning those sort of books is just a reflection of that.

That is not how it is portrayed. We know for a fact that Jaehaerys and Alysanne both wanted to marry each other and had to fight their mother to see it through. And Alyssa was a person who knew very well what and who she wanted, as did Jocelyn Baratheon with her nephew Aemon.

Renly can have whatever books he has, I don't care. Showing them to or allowing a 13-14-year old - or a boy even younger than that - access to them does not reflect favorably on Renly.

1 hour ago, R2D said:

But ok, I don't regard any of these relationships are abusive. It is just how Westeros operates.

Arranged marriages between spouses who neither love nor know each other prior to their marriage are abusive by nature. People are forced to live with each other against their inclination or desire. That is wrong in the real world as much as it is in Westeros.

1 hour ago, Orm said:

Yeah..... But concepts such as Marital rape didn't exist in westeros....... Still Rob was an asshole sometimes.... But the murderous Pyschopath that Cersei was really doesn't let me garner any sympathy towards her.......... Especially the case of paternal fraud and emotional abuse on her husband.......

And in my opinion Rob could've married almost anyone and at worst might have an average relationship...... But I just can't imagine Cersei in a healthy relationship with anyone........ 

Cersei's character has nothing to do with whether she was raped by her husband or not.

Although it certainly helped to warp Cersei somewhat further - she would have never raped Taena the way she did if she hadn't lived through the travesty of a marriage she had with Robert.

Cersei and Jaime have a pretty healthy relationship all things considered. The problem there isn't that they are twin siblings but that theirs is a secret and forbidden relationship.

They wouldn't have been the best nor the nicest people on the planet if they had lived together in marriage like Jaehaerys and Alysanne, but they wouldn't have been as fucked up as they are. Both would have been content and happy had they been allowed to rule the West as the next Lord and Lady of Casterly Rock.

[Orm]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei's character has nothing to do with whether she was raped by her husband or not.

I disagree....... It's in fact Cersie's character which makes Robert guilty of marital rape......... Or else their marriage day sex would also be a rape.........

 

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Although it certainly helped to warp Cersei somewhat further - she would have never raped Taena the way she did if she hadn't lived through the travesty of a marriage she had with Robert.

Right..... Now say she also wouldn't have murdered her friend if it weren't for the prophecy....... Also the travesty is more Robert's that he had been coerced into marrying Cersei of all people......

 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They wouldn't have been the best nor the nicest people on the planet if they had lived together in marriage like Jaehaerys and Alysanne, but they wouldn't have been as fucked up as they are. Both would have been content and happy had they been allowed to rule the West as the next Lord and Lady of Casterly Rock.

You know if you think consensual sibling incest is morally ok, then fine....... But it just doesn't sit well with me........

 

 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei and Jaime have a pretty healthy relationship all things considered. The problem there isn't that they are twin siblings but that theirs is a secret and forbidden relationship.

No they don't...... Its frankly quite toxic........ But then again Martin still insists that they are soul-mates....... So who am I to disagree with the author.......

[R2D]

On 7/31/2020 at 10:43 PM, Lord Varys said:

That you can say from any sort of relationship that goes back to your childhood days. If you fall in love with a neighbor a couple of years older you played in the sandbox since kindergarden were you groomed for that, or did it occur naturally?

And it is not that siblings in a Westerosi setting grow up at the same places. They would meet at table and stuff, but else they would spend their lives pretty much apart, with the boys doing boys things and the girls doing girls things.

That is not how it is portrayed. We know for a fact that Jaehaerys and Alysanne both wanted to marry each other and had to fight their mother to see it through. And Alyssa was a person who knew very well what and who she wanted, as did Jocelyn Baratheon with her nephew Aemon.

No, it's not the same because you've been with siblings since birth. You live in the same house. There's a hierachy in your household. You see your older sibling as someone to look up to and you trust them cause they're more mature than you. Your parents would also enforce this unequal power dynamic "listen to your brother" "do what X says because he's family" or "look how much your sister idolizes you, you should be a role model to her" etc

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC395

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/siblings-how-having-a-brother-sister-changes-kids/

(These articles talk about how siblings are one of the most powerful influences in our life, just behind parents.)

So you can be easily manipulated/brainwashed into wanting to be with them. The amount of power a parent/sibling has over you pales in comparison to a teacher. Especially if you've lived with them your whole entire life.

Maybe Alysanne and Alyssa wanted to marry their brothers because they were subtly influenced to since they were young.....

It's problematic.

[Lord Lannister]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei and Jaime have a pretty healthy relationship all things considered. The problem there isn't that they are twin siblings but that theirs is a secret and forbidden relationship.

They wouldn't have been the best nor the nicest people on the planet if they had lived together in marriage like Jaehaerys and Alysanne, but they wouldn't have been as fucked up as they are. Both would have been content and happy had they been allowed to rule the West as the next Lord and Lady of Casterly Rock.

I'm going to disagree there. Cersei and Jaime's relationship was toxic to the extreme. I don't doubt Jaime's feelings for Cersei, however screwed up they may be, are genuine. But Cersei's? No. She doesn't see Jaime. She sees a male version of herself. The ultimate form of narcissism. She doesn't care about his wants and needs, she cares about what she can get for herself. If she doesn't or cannot, she's quick to berate him, abuse him and seek solace elsewhere. 

Jaime might have been happy with Cersei as Lord and Lady of Casterly Rock. Cersei never would have been.

[R2D]

14 minutes ago, Orm said:

No they don't...... Its frankly quite toxic........ But then again Martin still insists that they are soul-mates....... So who am I to disagree with the author.......

True, Jaime doesn't respect Cersei's consent and it's very rapey.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Orm said:

I disagree....... It's in fact Cersie's character which makes Robert guilty of marital rape......... Or else their marriage day sex would also be a rape.........

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

1 hour ago, Orm said:

Right..... Now say she also wouldn't have murdered her friend if it weren't for the prophecy....... Also the travesty is more Robert's that he had been coerced into marrying Cersei of all people......

I'm not sure whether Cersei murdered Melara. She didn't call for help after she was in the well, but whether she pushed her inside we don't know yet. But if she did this was certainly triggered by the prophecy stuff.

1 hour ago, Orm said:

You know if you think consensual sibling incest is morally ok, then fine....... But it just doesn't sit well with me........

There is nothing wrong with consensual sex.

1 hour ago, Lord Lannister said:

I'm going to disagree there. Cersei and Jaime's relationship was toxic to the extreme. I don't doubt Jaime's feelings for Cersei, however screwed up they may be, are genuine. But Cersei's? No. She doesn't see Jaime. She sees a male version of herself. The ultimate form of narcissism. She doesn't care about his wants and needs, she cares about what she can get for herself. If she doesn't or cannot, she's quick to berate him, abuse him and seek solace elsewhere. 

Cersei is the sane one in that relationship. She knows bounds, she does see reason. Jaime just can't. He joins the KG for his sister's cunny, he thinks he can get away with murdering kings, fathering bastards on the queen his sister, and then actually marry her so all the world can see what he did.

The man is completely nuts.

Cersei knows she can never marry Jaime in the world they live in, she knows they might be able to pass Jaime's bastards for Robert's children but they have to be careful about that, she does everything in her power to protect them, while Jaime does everything in his power to ensure his children die an early death.

Cersei and Jaime both see each other as their other half. That is why Jaime was never into any other woman ... because it is self-evident to him that only Cersei is good enough for him, and only Jaime is good enough for her.

And that is the truth - no matter how many men Cersei has to fuck to protect her family while Jaime gets himself crippled in an attempt to protect the misbegotten dwarf. Cersei only loves Jaime, nobody else, that much is very clear. She doesn't express that love in a faithful manner - but so what? They aren't a married couple, are they?

1 hour ago, Lord Lannister said:

Jaime might have been happy with Cersei as Lord and Lady of Casterly Rock. Cersei never would have been.

Cersei would have been happy with that if her father and aunt hadn't fed her delusions that she could marry a prince and become the queen one day. If they had prepared her for an incestuous union with Jaime - if that had been possible - she would have been perfectly happy with that.

Unlike Jaime Cersei at least understand her dynastic role and follows that to a point. She agreed to marry Rhaegar and she agreed to marry Robert. And it seems pretty clear we have to thank Jaime for the golden-haired bastards because he was the one who helped Cersei abort Robert's child ... just as he was the one who impregnated Cersei three times.

[Orm]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Exactly what I mean...... We have hindsight.... We know them..... Robert should've never married Cersei...... He was generally a good dude and his dynasty would've survived past him, if he married anyone but Cersei........

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But if she did this was certainly triggered by the prophecy stuff

Yep...... Let her have no agency at all......

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is nothing wrong with consensual sex.

Say it as it is...... Consensual sibling incestuous sex........

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei is the sane one in that relationship. She knows bounds, she does see reason. Jaime just can't. He joins the KG for his sister's cunny, he thinks he can get away with murdering kings, fathering bastards on the queen his sister, and then actually marry her so all the world can see what he did.

The man is completely nuts.

Cersei knows she can never marry Jaime in the world they live in, she knows they might be able to pass Jaime's bastards for Robert's children but they have to be careful about that, she does everything in her power to protect them, while Jaime does everything in his power to ensure his children die an early death.

Cersei and Jaime both see each other as their other half. That is why Jaime was never into any other woman ... because it is self-evident to him that only Cersei is good enough for him, and only Jaime is good enough for her.

And that is the truth - no matter how many men Cersei has to fuck to protect her family while Jaime gets himself crippled in an attempt to protect the misbegotten dwarf. Cersei only loves Jaime, nobody else, that much is very clear. She doesn't express that love in a faithful manner - but so what? They aren't a married couple, are they?

Quote

Jaime might have been happy with Cersei as Lord and Lady of Casterly Rock. Cersei never would have been.

Cersei would have been happy with that if her father and aunt hadn't fed her delusions that she could marry a prince and become the queen one day. If they had prepared her for an incestuous union with Jaime - if that had been possible - she would have been perfectly happy with that.

Unlike Jaime Cersei at least understand her dynastic role and follows that to a point. She agreed to marry Rhaegar and she agreed to marry Robert. And it seems pretty clear we have to thank Jaime for the golden-haired bastards because he was the one who helped Cersei abort Robert's child ... just as he was the one who impregnated Cersei three

Wow...... You almost make it sound convincing that Cersei is almost half as smart as she thinks she is........ Unfortunately the truth is far from it........

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 2/20/2020 at 1:54 AM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So was I the only one that got really uncomfortable reading about Ygritte blackmailing Jon into having sex?

Okay, I'm going to take a maybe unpopular opinion based on the things I've seen said in the forums of : No, but also no from the perspective of someone who dates aggressive dominant women and is indeed a man who has been raped by women. I do think this is a sensitive issue, especially if you have been raped and I am not trying to downplay men (or women)'s experience on this forum at all. The reason I think it is not rape is...quite frankly, Jon from his own experience does not seem to think it is rape. I admit that it borders on consent because of how they have sex the first time, but again...I've dated many women who were as aggressive if not more aggressive then Ygritte. Because of how society treats aggressive women, they felt the need to make an excuse for the "reason" that we should have sex for the first time. However, none of them kept going if I asked them to stop, and I would argue the same would have happened if Jon had asked Ygritte to stop. On the other hand, although I've been ...mildly molested, or outright raped a few times by women, the worst was a person we'll call Jessica (even though she raped me, I don't want to use her real name). Anyways, Jessica was aggressive (like the other women I liked) but...she stepped on my boundaries constantly. When I asked her to stop, she often didn't ...and would push things to the point I had to push her off me. Finally, she started touching me and tried to put me inside her while I was so drunk I couldn't move. I was repeatedly telling her to stop (drunkenly, but still) and she didn't. The only reason she didn't straight up rape me was because my friend walked into the room. Again, as someone who dates strong dominant women, I've unfortunately had to experience the side of the coin where they go too far many times..but I don't read Ygritte and Jon's situation as have been going to far. I totally respect those who think it was, my humble opinion as a reader was just to read Jon as someone like me...who was attracted to that kind of thing. Anyways, again, I don't want to make anyone feel bad or suggest you can't have different limits. You can. For me though, someone like Ygritte would be extremely attractive and especially when I was younger...I would have liked her forcefulness....so it hard for me to call it rape...especially as it seems..from our perspective in Jon's head, that he did indeed enjoy the experience. 

[Sigella]

On 7/31/2020 at 1:52 AM, R2D said:

I mean that Lord Varys will say that Jon-Ygritte is so terrible, Ygritte treated Jon as a sex toy, etc

But he supports couples like Edmure-Roslin and Walda-Roose. When you can even say that those couples have the same issues as Jon and Ygritte. Roslin cried on her wedding day and Edmure still had sex with her. Walda is 15 and Roose is waay older.

But he praises those couples while saying Jon and Ygritte is so bad. And he even likes Targ couples without acknowledging that by modern  standards incest between siblings who grew up together is abusive.

So yeah maybe I  am a bit mad that people are making out Jon and Ygritte to be the worst when there are all these other couples they don't mind.

Look, the point being made is that agency, consent and willingness makes for happier couples and I agree with it.

If the incestees are consenting adults and they dont breed it isnt morally reprenhensible to do incest. Modern standards fifty years ago viewed sexually active women as insane and gays as criminals. My guess is that eating meat or wearing fur will be re-evaluated in a not to distant future and then people will look back with horror on the meatindusty. Does that make it morally reprenhensible today? Just blindly following ”modern standards” doesn’t make someone/thing morally good by any means.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Sigella said:

If the incestees are consenting adults and they dont breed it isnt morally reprenhensible to do incest. Modern standards fifty years ago viewed sexually active women as insane and gays as criminals. My guess is that eating meat or wearing fur will be re-evaluated in a not to distant future and then people will look back with horror on the meatindusty. Does that make it morally reprenhensible today? Just blindly following ”modern standards” doesn’t make someone/thing morally good by any means.

As long as we don't have mandatory tests for everybody to assess the risk of hereditary diseases and other birth defects prior to procreation, it is hypocritical and double standard to insist that consensual incest couples do not procreate.

I'm not advising that, mind you, but as long as people with a high risk to transfer some disease can do that without any repercussions, loving incest couples should be allowed to do the same. We are not forced to follow some sort of eugenics code.

[R2D]

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

Look, the point being made is that agency, consent and willingness makes for happier couples and I agree with it.

If the incestees are consenting adults and they dont breed it isnt morally reprenhensible to do incest. Modern standards fifty years ago viewed sexually active women as insane and gays as criminals. My guess is that eating meat or wearing fur will be re-evaluated in a not to distant future and then people will look back with horror on the meatindusty. Does that make it morally reprenhensible today? Just blindly following ”modern standards” doesn’t make someone/thing morally good by any means.

No such thing as 'consenting adult incest'.

That's only possible if they've never met, and were raised apart and fell in love later in life.

Don't quote me again.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, R2D said:

No such thing as 'consenting adult incest'.

That's only possible if they've never met, and were raised apart and fell in love later in life.

Don't quote me again.

Would you then think the children of room mates who were raised in the same home are incestuous if they ended up in a consenting sexual relationship in their teens or twenties?

[R2D]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Would you then think the children of room mates who were raised in the same home are incestuous if they ended up in a consenting sexual relationship in their teens or twenties?

They probably wouldn't end up in a relationship.

Look up the 'Westermarck effect'. Were're biologically programmed to not be attracted to people we were raised alongside with.

It wouldn't be incest, it could still be problematic but incest is mostly bad because we're automatically taught to defer to our siblings. Other problematic factors would also not be present. The need for secrecy is a major part of why incest is rarely consensual.

[Orm]

8 hours ago, R2D said:

No such thing as 'consenting adult incest'.

Thankfully, I am not the only one in here, who here sees the problem with incest......

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, R2D said:

They probably wouldn't end up in a relationship.

Look up the 'Westermarck effect'. Were're biologically programmed to not be attracted to people we were raised alongside with.

It wouldn't be incest, it could still be problematic but incest is mostly bad because we're automatically taught to defer to our siblings. Other problematic factors would also not be present. The need for secrecy is a major part of why incest is rarely consensual.

There seems to be doubt that the Westermarck effect is actually a biological but rather a sociological effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

My personal guess would be that it is that people who grew up together don't find each other as attractive as new people they first meet when adolescence kicks in and the drive to get sexually active starts. The love/attraction of shiny new things would override and attraction you might feel for people you have known for a long time, so to speak. After all, infatuation usually sets in shortly after you get to know a person - and that ship mostly sailed for children who grew up together since they were toddlers. But definitely not in all cases.

Also, most of the known cases of sibling incest where people grew up apart are explained by the heightened attraction one naturally feels for close kin.

Then there is the fact that children are taught long before puberty that they cannot marry their siblings in our day and age - but this wasn't always the case (nor is it in all cultures in existence today). There are tax documents from early Roman Egypt indicating that a considerable number of the people there had married their sisters. This wasn't something that was limited to the elites - in fact, the Ptolemies were the only Hellenistic dynasty that went native in the sense that they started to practice incest after they had established themselves there. Which they wouldn't have done, one assumes, if it hadn't been the standard in Egypt (their fellow Greeks didn't exactly view this as a great thing to do).

If we were truly biologically primed to avoid incest at all cost then it wouldn't happen as often as it still does, nor would there have been entire cultures where it was a well-known practice. And this doesn't just extend to royal incest which the Egyptians and Persians were famed for, but also continuous inbreeding among rich and aristocratic folk by means of avuncular or close cousin marriages. If people knew this could be detrimental to the family and dynasty further down the road they wouldn't have done it. I mean, cousin marriage was the standard among Southern plantation owners as per Gone with the Wind.

And in relation to various incest taboos one has to acknowledge that they are awfully arbitrary. For instance, there are cultures were things extend to you not being allowed to marry your widowed sister-in-law or other in-laws while it is perfectly okay to marry first cousins or uncles/aunts.

And people are not necessarily taught to defer to their older siblings - nor is it a given that only older siblings approach younger siblings in a sexual manner if something like that happens.

Edit: A very good example for sexual attraction among people who were effectively reared together would be the entire Dawson-Joey thing from Dawson's Creek (in part based on real experiences). There you have two youths who slept in the same bed and spent pretty much their entire childhood together ... and eventually develop romantic feelings for each other and are sexually attracted to each other.

[Sigella]

20 hours ago, R2D said:

No such thing as 'consenting adult incest'.

That's only possible if they've never met, and were raised apart and fell in love later in life.

Don't quote me again.

 Good strong westboro baptist-vibes there pal   

[Sigella]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As long as we don't have mandatory tests for everybody to assess the risk of hereditary diseases and other birth defects prior to procreation, it is hypocritical and double standard to insist that consensual incest couples do not procreate.

I'm not advising that, mind you, but as long as people with a high risk to transfer some disease can do that without any repercussions, loving incest couples should be allowed to do the same. We are not forced to follow some sort of eugenics code.

The step from "morally reprehensible" to "eugenics" is pretty far and one I'm not taking. I think "nag-rape" is morally reprehensible but I don't think it should/could be illegal, same with most everything else I don't like. There are a lot of varying levels.

I'd like to argue that incestous progeny would be the result of eugenics, though. Pretty much the same high-risk-diesease-progeny would be eugenics on part of their parents. But inbreeding takes the cake on all other diseases in terms of how utterly debilitating its effects can be. Like, they can have ivf and all live happily ever after as a biological family, it would be cruel and stupid towards the kids not to. (To a varying degree considering how closely related they are)

You know how inbreeding is causing massive health issues in purebred dogs? There are programs trying to correct these issues by infusing fresh dna. In your logic; the programs are bad because they do eugenics - or in my logic; the inbreeding is bad for doing eugenics.

[Lord Varys]

41 minutes ago, Sigella said:

The step from "morally reprehensible" to "eugenics" is pretty far and one I'm not taking. I think "nag-rape" is morally reprehensible but I don't think it should/could be illegal, same with most everything else I don't like. There are a lot of varying levels.

I was just trying to illustrate that as long as we two could knowingly (because we might know that we carry certain hereditary traits) conceive an army of children suffering from hereditary diseases and go free it is a double standard that consensual incest is a criminal offense - regardless whether it leads to offspring or not.

But if it does - then so what?

As long as other people have a right to do with their semen and eggs as they do please so should they.

41 minutes ago, Sigella said:

I'd like to argue that incestous progeny would be the result of eugenics, though. Pretty much the same high-risk-diesease-progeny would be eugenics on part of their parents. But inbreeding takes the cake on all other diseases in terms of how utterly debilitating its effects can be. Like, they can have ivf and all live happily ever after as a biological family, it would be cruel and stupid towards the kids not to. (To a varying degree considering how closely related they are)

I'd phrase things that way. If I and a non-existing sister had offspring together we would only do eugenics if she and I were doing that not out of love or sexual attraction but because we were part some sort of incestuous breeding program.

The eugenics aspect is about the ridiculous idea that society can determine whether people procreate or not - that's their choice in any society that wants to call itself 'free'.

I've no clue about breeding animals, but I do know that inbreeding is a crucial part of that. I don't want to know how many wolves had to have offspring with their mothers and sisters before humanity had produced the first poodle.

And from what I know the breeder selects the individuals who survive, i.e. you pick only those who have desirable traits for the next breeding cycle, and so on and so forth. Obviously people were able to create various viable dog races that way.

But, sure, inbreeding can be a problem when the gene pool is very limited. In the wild that's the case with the heavily inbred cheetahs.

[Sigella]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I was just trying to illustrate that as long as we two could knowingly (because we might know that we carry certain hereditary traits) conceive an army of children suffering from hereditary diseases and go free it is a double standard that consensual incest is a criminal offense - regardless whether it leads to offspring or not.

But if it does - then so what?

As long as other people have a right to do with their semen and eggs as they do please so should they.

I'd phrase things that way. If I and a non-existing sister had offspring together we would only do eugenics if she and I were doing that not out of love or sexual attraction but because we were part some sort of incestuous breeding program.

The eugenics aspect is about the ridiculous idea that society can determine whether people procreate or not - that's their choice in any society that wants to call itself 'free'.

I've no clue about breeding animals, but I do know that inbreeding is a crucial part of that. I don't want to know how many wolves had to have offspring with their mothers and sisters before humanity had produced the first poodle.

And from what I know the breeder selects the individuals who survive, i.e. you pick only those who have desirable traits for the next breeding cycle, and so on and so forth. Obviously people were able to create various viable dog races that way.

But, sure, inbreeding can be a problem when the gene pool is very limited. In the wild that's the case with the heavily inbred cheetahs.

Heh, I think you're dodging here. Using a breeding program to minimize medical issues is eugenics, but its not morally reprehensible.

Purposely ruining your children's chances of health/survival/possibilities towards a full life etc, is child abuse. If you need to resort to a eugenics way of avoiding it, I think it'd be morally corrupt not to. Not because you and your sister don't have a right to to what you wan't but because you'd be cruel. 

If you live in a country that don't have birth control or you are too poor to afford it, it puts things in another light. Scandicentric me was just assuming everyone does which isn't the case.

An unplanned inbreed pregnancy throws things into a whole other loop too. I can't call someone an asshole for not wanting to abort their child, so here I give up  

I wouldn't say ivf pregnancy isn't the result of love or lust, like why else would you want to have children with someone?