Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Possibly a really stupid question...

Tharos

Under what category would you class - Sex with your own clone or variations there in?

Michael Loucks

@Tharos

Masturbation? :-)

sunkuwan

@Tharos

It is "officially" classified as "Selfcest"

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@sunkuwan


It is "officially" classified as "Selfcest"


Note: Selfcest covers not just clones, but time travel (past/future versions of yourself) and alternate reality alternate versions of yourself.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/selfcest

AmigaClone

@Tharos

Personally I would only use Masturbation where two different bodies are pleasuring each other in a situation where the two or more bodies are controlled by a merged mind (deep telepathic connection.)

I would treat it as you would treat identical twins, without having the appropriate sibling code. I also would likely include science fiction if that was the source of the clone.

For instance, an 25 year old woman and her 20 year old clone would be coded incest, lesbian, FA/FA

robberhands

I'd file it within my extensive list of 'I better read something else'.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@robberhands

I'd file it within my extensive list of 'I better read something else'.

Now if it was her 20-year-old tentacled clone …

BlacKnight

If it's truly a clone, it's twincest, and I would say should be tagged appropriately, with whichever same-sex pairing and sibling incest tags are applicable, but not Masturbation. Clones are just identical twins with (possibly) different birth dates.

Situations like a time-looped character getting it on with literally their older/younger self or a dimension-traveler getting it on with alternate-universe versions of them are less clear-cut.

StarFleet Carl

@Tharos

Sex with your own clone or variations there in?


A lot of the terms used now simply weren't invented when this topic first hit the mainstream, specifically in Heinlein's 1973 work, Time Enough for Love. At that time, when Lazarus Long was seduced by his 'daughter' clones, it was basically considered (at worst) masturbation, since the sex partners were himself, albeit of different ages and gender.

Seeing what TV tropes calls it now - selfcest, autoincest, clonecest, incesturbation, or doppelbanger - tells me that realistically someone is simply playing loose with some funny words and really has no clue. It CAN'T be any kind of cest, because your clone is YOU. And doppelbanger just sounds stupid ...

So yeah, I'd go with masturbation, and tell the 'official classification people' to shove it where the sun don't shine.

Replies:   BlacKnight
BlacKnight

@StarFleet Carl

It CAN'T be any kind of cest, because your clone is YOU.


Clones are not YOU. They're different people who happen to share the same gene sequence. They are no more the same person than identical twins are the same person. Identical twins are literally natural clones.

And Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee, who weren't even genetically identical to Woody, were definitely not the same person. The only masturbation going on there was RAH over his typewriter.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@BlacKnight

And Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee, who weren't even genetically identical to Woody


I know where my copy of the book is right now, in storage, so I can't dig it out for full reference, but if memory serves me correctly, wasn't the argument that they were 45/46 equal, with the 46th portion a duplicate of one chromosome? Something like that, anyway.

I know you're talking about how experience and environment affects someone, for considering them different. But what makes them you? Consider that in Star Trek, one of the issues of discussion with the use of the transporter is that it doesn't actually 'beam' you from one place to another. It scans your molecules, then sends the INFORMATION to the receiving end - effectively killing YOU and then recreating someone who is identical to you on the other end. What happens when you don't erase the first sending unit? You end up with two Will Rikers.

In TEFL, the discussion was also about using a non-quickened clone for replacement body parts. There's no issue with alien tissue rejection, since it's YOUR body that they're putting back into you to replace that heart or lung or kidney. Is it you, it is property, or what?

Replies:   AmigaClone  BlacKnight
AmigaClone

@StarFleet Carl

You end up with two Will Rikers.


Just how were the two Will Rikers treated in that episode of Star Trek the Next Generation that was first shown in the USA 25 years ago? Were they treated as one person or two?

oyster50

From Isaac Asimov, science fiction writer (among other things):



Oh, give me a clone

Of my own flesh and bone

With its Y chromosome changed to X.

And after it's grown,

Then my own little clone

Will be of the opposite sex.

...

The whole thing's at http://members.tripod.com/~bardic_circle/aclone.htm

BlacKnight

@StarFleet Carl

I know where my copy of the book is right now, in storage, so I can't dig it out for full reference, but if memory serves me correctly, wasn't the argument that they were 45/46 equal, with the 46th portion a duplicate of one chromosome? Something like that, anyway.

Woody and his clone-sisters were about as close to genetically identical as opposite-sex twins (or triplets) could be. But they weren't identical, and it wouldn't matter if they were. There's an important difference between "people who are the same", and "the same person". Woodrow Wilson Smith and his twin sisters were people who were similar, not the same person. It's incest, not masturbation.

I know you're talking about how experience and environment affects someone, for considering them different.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the self. The mind, consciousness, continuity of awareness, the soul if you believe in such things. The thing that makes one person you and all the other people other people.

Identical twins share a genetic code, but they don't share a mind. They're different people. Very similar people, but not the same person.

Clones, once again, are literally just artificially created identical twins. They're new people with the same genetic code as a pre-existing person. They have their own minds, just like a naturally-born identical twin has a mind independent of their twin. They are very similar people, but they're not the same person.

But what makes them you? Consider that in Star Trek, one of the issues of discussion with the use of the transporter is that it doesn't actually 'beam' you from one place to another. It scans your molecules, then sends the INFORMATION to the receiving end - effectively killing YOU and then recreating someone who is identical to you on the other end. What happens when you don't erase the first sending unit? You end up with two Will Rikers.

That's a completely different question, because Trek transporters aren't cloning. They're literally duplicating a person, mind and all, not gestating a fresh identical twin of them.

And I wouldn't step into a Trek transporter. There's no way to tell if I'd be the person who wakes up in the body on the other end after the one I'm living in gets disintegrated. Sure, there'd be a copy of me walking around looking like me and acting like me and believing it's me, so my friends wouldn't have to be sad, but would it actually be me? There's no way to tell without trying it, and even then the copy would believe it worked, whether it did or not.

That the transporter can produce two Will Rikers who don't (presumably) share the same mind after the fork point suggests that it's not actually a transporter; it's a disintegration chamber that kills the people that go into it and covers it up by creating new people just like them elsewhere.

(I say "presumably" because I'm not sure if I've ever seen that episode, and if I have it was a long time ago and I don't remember it clearly. My Trek-watching was spotty back in the day, and I haven't re-watched since. I've been meaning to plow through the TNG-era series - or at least TNG and DS9 - on Netflix, but haven't gotten around to it.)

In TEFL, the discussion was also about using a non-quickened clone for replacement body parts. There's no issue with alien tissue rejection, since it's YOUR body that they're putting back into you to replace that heart or lung or kidney. Is it you, it is property, or what?


If by "non-quickened", they mean "not capable of sapience", like for instance if the brain was prevented from developing beyond the autonomous nervous system that keeps basic life support functions going, yeah, it's property, like any other lump of non-sapient meat. Until it's installed in you, then it becomes part of your body. Until then, it isn't you, it's a lump of non-sapient meat that shares your genetic code. (Though it's genetically human, so you can't sell it on eBay.)

If he is sapient, and they just haven't let him wake up, then he's a person and you're benefiting from his murder.

Worth noting: Rainbow and her clone-sister CC, despite being genetically identical, do not look the same. There's a detailed technical description of the reason behind that link, but what it boils down to is that the coat coloration is, broadly, genetically determined, but details like the exact placement and shade of spots and so on are basically random within those broad limits.

Replies:   madnige
BlacKnight

You want a RAH story that actually involves someone having sex with themself? Consider how you'd tag "'—All You Zombies—'".

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
madnige

@BlacKnight

details like the exact placement and shade of spots and so on are basically random within those broad limits.


This is, of course, why identical twins (naturally occurring clones) have different fingerprints (similar, but not identical)

For an excellent exploration of identity in a cloning situation, I recommend reading C.J.Cherryh's Cyteen. It's also got scenes of drug-rape, underage sex and hints at behind-the-scenes paedophilia, but what I like best is the 'voice' of the main chacrater, the way it develops over time and the differences between teenager and centenarian in the computer transcripts.

StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@BlacKnight


You want a RAH story that actually involves someone having sex with themself? Consider how you'd tag "'—All You Zombies—'".


Probably about how you'd tag David Gerrold's 'The Man Who Folded Himself'...

I think that's where some of my stubbornness about this discussion comes from, since I've read that as well.

Back to Top