Incest, explain your stance without bringing up genetics.

[Comocat]

I think the question is really what is the nature of sex? I think the overwhelming consensus on this forum is that sex is just a thing that you do (like doing dishes or playing video games). If that's the case then it really isn't a big deal because sex isn't a big. In that case why have any sexual norms at all? IMO there is a lot more the sex than just being a thing that people do and consequently saying if two adults agree to it must be okay doesn't jive with me.

I doubt the human population will reach a critical mass of incestuous sex fiends, but the cheetah is likely going to extinct because there aren't enough unique individuals to maintain the population. That is so many Cheetahs are related, it's almost statiscally impossible to rescue the population.

 

[jklinders]

Sorry OP can't exclude genetics from this discussion. Genetics is the reason that the stigma exists. There is virtually no other reason out there against it but the this but it is so compelling that it needs to be in the discussion. Sometime back in the days of yore folks noticed that family groups who kept things too far "in the family" eventually started having terrible problems with having healthy children. They might not have known the reason for it but it was pretty clear that going outside the home for your husband or wife was a pretty good idea.

I'm on board with others who have said that this chat cannot happen without bringing genes up. It's like trying to explain why it's uncomfortable to be outside in a t-shirt in the dead of winter without mentioning hypothermia.

 

[Evil Moo]

Really. So you would have no problem with a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her, because there would be no problem with genetics?

As I see it, incest and sexual grooming of children are separate issues and should be treated as such. Often related perhaps, I don't know, but what is to stop the punishment of the latter while allowing the former?

Because the complexity of the relations between members of the same family makes it extremely hard to figure out if both people are fully consenting or if there is some sort of pressure put on one of the two. Making it almost impossible to separate the two issues out in the real world.

Regardless of how intertwined they are in real world cases, they are separate issues and incest does not necessarily imply coercion or lack of consent. In the case you are describing, the incestuous nature of the situation is incidental and not strictly relevant to the actual problem. Yes, in the real world what you say is probably going to be the case, but in a theoretical discussion about incest as a concept, it is not relevant I feel.

 

[Tombsite]

But grooming children from a young age is sexual abuse? That can't possibly be your point can it? That sexual abuse of a minor is ever ok?

Ohhhhh wait I get it! Are you implying that incest always involves the sexual abuse of a minor? And that sexual abuse of a minor and incest are completely synonymous therefore a neutral stance on one implies a neutral stance on the other despite them being completely fucking different things? Is that it? Are you ok?

No that is in fact not what I am implying. What I am saying is that incest, almost always, happens in situations where one of the two have some sort of power over the other. Therefore, even though they both claim to be consenting adults, there is almost always some sort of power imbalance going on. This is, I think, a much bigger issue than genetics (which has been shown above to be less of a problem than what most people assume). I will admit that I chose an extreme example of this power imbalance for effect and that in hind sight it was not the best tactic.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Eww.


Yeah... that about sums it up.

 

[MetroidNut]

Hey guys! Let's discuss the ethics of abortion, without bringing up the child's right to life or the mother's right to control her body. Wouldn't that be fun and productive?

 

[thenightgaunt]

Cousins are fine (well I think its creepy but whatevs).
Anything closer is wrong.
Why do I think this?
Parent-child relationships (regardless of age) are wrong for the same reason teacher-student, patient-doctor/psychologist type relationships are considered wrong except its worse because a parent has had been the authority figure for the child's entire life or at least has been elevated to that status in the childs development (in cases where the parent may have been absent). A relationship between a parent and child is unhealthy and morally wrong because there is a clear imbalance of "power" and a large likelihood that the child has consented to the relationship only because of the parent's influence.

Sibling relationships I consider wrong for similar reasons as generally there will be an older/younger sibling which again creates a power imbalance. There's also the fact that I think a healthy person can distinguish and separate love for family/friends and for a partner. Say what you want about love being a chemical/biological thing, most people would agree that its possible and essential to be able to love without it being a romantic/sexual emotion.

This is pretty much the point really. From a psychology standpoint for the most part it's that "consenting" and "power imbalance" issue that turns it almost always into a deeply traumatic event. But it can be the fact that it destroys the family relationship.
Or another way of looking at it, for children and adolescents (and adults to a certain degree), family is a source of reliability, safety, support and trust. So the thought might be "hey, that's important in a healthy sexual/romantic relationship too, right?" But a sexual relationship isn't that secure or that safe. There's now the potential for using one another. The reliability that you are safe in and among family is gone or irrevocably changed. It's now lost and that betrayal will always be there between the people involved. And the others as well. How can a daughter ever trust her father again after he sleeps with her sister (his other daughter)? And that's just talking about the issue without going into the deep trauma that can and does occur.

Let me put it this way. I have my MA in psychology and my focus was human sexuality. As a result I read a lot of cases and studies focusing on this particular topic because so often incest does lead to trauma. Now, in my culture (American) I've almost never heard of a case of incest that didn't result in one of the two people becoming traumatized and developing a psychological dysfunction. Historical or foreign accounts don't matter here because 1. historical accounts are a terrible source of information on how things really impacted the people involved, and 2. they are not my own current society/culture so the impact of such an event will have remarkably different effects. Ex: I would feel deeply off-put if forced to marry a 1st cousin. However there have been (and still are) cultures/societies where that's not the norm but common enough that no one blinked an eye at it. But that's not and excuse unless both people are from and still live in that kind of society. Otherwise you're looking at an almost guaranteed case of some sort of mental dysfunction.

 

[Sethzard]

Well that's going to be a bit difficult, because it's all genetics. It's in our instinct to be sexually repelled by close relatives.

It's actually exactly the opposite, we're genetically predisposed to want to have relations with our relatives the problem is that we end up with a lot of recessive genetic diseases and a narrow gene pool which is bad.

From a non-genetic viewpoint, people can have sex with whoever they want as long as both parties are consenting adults.

 

[BlindTom]

But grooming children from a young age is sexual abuse? That can't possibly be your point can it? That sexual abuse of a minor is ever ok?

Ohhhhh wait I get it! Are you implying that incest always involves the sexual abuse of a minor? And that sexual abuse of a minor and incest are completely synonymous therefore a neutral stance on one implies a neutral stance on the other despite them being completely fucking different things? Is that it? Are you ok?

No that is in fact not what I am implying. What I am saying is that incest, almost always, happens in situations where one of the two have some sort of power over the other. Therefore, even though they both claim to be consenting adults, there is almost always some sort of power imbalance going on. This is, I think, a much bigger issue than genetics (which has been shown above to be less of a problem than what most people assume). I will admit that I chose an extreme example of this power imbalance for effect and that in hind sight it was not the best tactic.

Ohhhh so you're talking about when somebody in a "position of trust" abuses that position in order gain consent under duress. In the UK we actually have laws to do with this that prevent, for example, a teacher from having sexual relations with a student because the nature of the relationship raises the age of consent from 16 to 18.

This feels a lot like a seperate issue though. Incest is a wide net covering fraternal relationships, "kissing cousins," and all sorts of other shit that should it cross a line not related to genetics would trip a different set of alarms.

Basically if they're related my Incest Alarm(tm) goes off specifically because of genetic exchange and I trust my Statutory Rape(tm) alarm etc to cover everything else.

 

[Shanahanapp]

Vicitmless crime really. Like who does it hurt? If two people are in love then who are we to tell them what they can or can't do?

 

[Tombsite]

Regardless of how intertwined they are in real world cases, they are separate issues and incest does not necessarily imply coercion or lack of consent. In the case you are describing, the incestuous nature of the situation is incidental and not strictly relevant to the actual problem. Yes, in the real world what you say is probably going to be the case, but in a theoretical discussion about incest as a concept, it is not relevant I feel.

But this is not a theoretical debate. This is about yours and my stance on incest. Mine is that incest should be illegal to protect people from coercion (which is almost always present in some form in an incestual relationship) despite the fact that it in a few cases prevents consenting adults from having sex.

So when people act as if the only problem is genetics I can't help but to ask why that is the only thing they care about.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

So you want someone to state a stance on incest without bringing up what is pretty much the main and most immediately quantifiable reason against it?

There's a reason most people aren't attracted to their siblings and think bumping uglies with your sister is gross and it all leads back to genetics. Evolutionary patterns and instincts exist in ways that benefit successful reproduction. Without genetics the matter of incest might even be by and large a social nonissue.

That said, honestly I'm more offended about the intellectual premise of dismissing a major and valid counterpoint than I am about family members fucking each other. If both people are consenting adults I don't give a shit. Intentionally reproducing is much more morally questionable but if we're just talking about sex or love it's not anyone else's place to say.

 

[chiggerwood]

So we can't bring up concerns about the genetic issues possible offspring may have. Isn't that like discussing anti-smoking stances, but forcing an exclusion of arguments pertaining to cancer?

Also:

honestly I'm more offended about the intellectual premise of dismissing a major and valid counterpoint than I am about family members fucking each other. If both people are consenting adults I don't give a shit. Intentionally reproducing is much more morally questionable but if we're just talking about sex or love it's not anyone else's place to say.

THIS! this ,this, this, this, oh dear God this!

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Well that's going to be a bit difficult, because it's all genetics. It's in our instinct to be sexually repelled by close relatives.

Actually reverse imprinting (The Westermarck Effect) relies on close proximity to people in their early childhood, so estranged genetic siblings will sometimes pair up, and few people hook up with their childhood friend (in contrast to their high-school or college sweethearts).

238U

 

[Hagi]

In most of the real incest that happens, as opposed to the fictional variant people imagine when questions like this pop up (cousins who've never met before for example), there are very often some seriously imbalanced relations in play that make determining consent very difficult.

Considering that most family relations are, in some part, hierarchical thus making consent quite tricky to determine I see it much in the same way as teacher-student relationships. Even if both are of age I think it's very smart for the general rule to be disallowing it and for societal pressures to go against it.

I don't believe incest is right in the same way I don't believe romantic or sexual relationships between students and teachers are right. If one of them is underage then I think it's seriously wrong. If both are of age then I still think it's wrong, though not nearly to the same degree, but it'd be the family's/school's business and I won't voice my opinion unless in private or asked for it.

Hm, I disagree with your interpretation of consent, I've think you're overcomplicating it. It's easy to determine consent: whether or not the person agreed to do it.

When it comes to sex, clearly those below a certain age defined by law must be protected from exploitation and so aren't legally allowed to agree as such. Those who have reached adulthood though should be considered responsible for their own actions and if they consider themselves to have given consent, who are we to tell them otherwise?

That's the thing with family relationships. Even if they don't consider themselves to have given consent there's no way in hell many people will share such with outsiders. It's the same thing as with a lot of domestic abuse that happens, it goes unreported and nobody knows about it because the victims keep it quiet, they keep it in the family. They don't want their family member to end up in jail, they don't want outsiders interfering. So they'll try to keep it secret and if it does come out they'll say it wasn't entirely without consent, after all as horrible as the situation is it's still about family and seeing those go to jail would make it even worse.

This makes it extremely difficult to determine whether or not someone actually considers themselves to have given consent. Because they won't actually tell you either way, they don't want you to know.

Considering the small amount of genuine incestuous relationships where it is known for certain such things aren't at play compared to the large amount of incestuous relationships where it is known for certain such things are at play I think it's entirely reasonable to draw a clear line and say, you know there's literally thousands of women/men you could form a relationship with and because so very often things go wrong with this small handful of women/men in your family we're going to go ahead and say don't do that, find someone else.

 

[II2]

It's hard not to bring up genetics, that being of primary concern. Pregnancy is the worst outcome of the action, which I assume is why it seems to be a near global aversion / taboo, with only small pockets of societies accepting it.

I can't bring up my stance on it without talking about genetics, because that's the foundation of my stance. Beyond that, it's not something I really feel anything about.

If someone else is, and consummates that feeling, it's only a problem if it's a problem. If no kids, emotional damage, unfaithfulness or other bizarre fallout come from it, then who cares?

It's a bit weird, but standing outside the rational concerns over it, it seems ethically neutral.

 

[TehCookie]

Read the manga Usagi Drop from start to finish.

Spoiler: This was my reaction

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU TWO?

Though does it being instinctively wrong count as genetics?

 

[Shanahanapp]

I guess there are ways to get around the genetic thing. Like couldn't the guy just have a vasectomy?

 

[peruvianskys]

In most of the real incest that happens, as opposed to the fictional variant people imagine when questions like this pop up (cousins who've never met before for example), there are very often some seriously imbalanced relations in play that make determining consent very difficult.

This is very important. My main concern regarding incest is not the inherent morality of it but the practical difficulties that such a relationship would bring up. Consent implies at least vaguely equivalent notions of power and influence, and I just can't see that happening in any incestuous relationship. To me, a younger relative sleeping with an older relative is just never appropriate because it's just by definition an imbalance of power. Even two siblings having sex seems a little dangerous in terms of developing an emotionally stable and mutually consensual arrangement.