Incest, explain your stance without bringing up genetics.

[Aramis Night]

Why? I mean, seriously? Why exclude what is, generally speaking, the strongest case against it? Morally, it's a very gray area that pretty much comes down to what someone personally believes (provided it's consenting adults). Excluding genetics from an incest discussion is like excluding connectivity issues from an Alway Online DRM discussion. It's kind of the central problem.

I mean really, aside from "My personal beliefs say x" what kind of insight are you hoping to receive?

Exactly this.

Genetics is THE reason it is outlawed/frowned on. You can make the "two consenting adults" argument all you want, but at the end of the day, if a child comes out of it, that child has no say in what genetics he/she does or does not have as a result of the actions of the adults. So the child, in a way, can not consent to being born and thus it is unfair to that child. Not to mention the stigma attached, even if the child comes out healthy. It simply goes beyond what two adults choose or choose not to do and, unlike the "Gay" argument, it does affect others around them.

So then why do we allow old women to have sex and to procreate? Not only does the child of an older woman have a greater chance for defects, but may have a social stigma of having mom mistaken for grandma or worse yet, being raised without a mom when she dies of old age and possibly orphaned.

 

[MammothBlade]

I mean most animals with above average intellegence don't have those relationships so why should you.

Many species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual relationships, but that doesn't change the fact that humans go on crusades against it. Despite the fact that it's actually a pretty deeply ingrained practice in our own species as well.

Snip

I actually recognize your avatar for once!

That was a strange show.

Damn, now I have to change it again! Not obscure enough

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Yeah, it's not entirely coincidental that incest and child sexual abuse tend to crop up next to each other. They're bosom buddies. They can exist in isolation, for sure, but they're neighbors without a fence to separate their yards.

Honestly, the psychological effects, in terms of development and maturity and pathology, are so well documented at this point that I'm truly curious if folks just don't bother to do much reading before engaging in an online debate. They just don't realize the debate is already ongoing, between people way more educated on the subject than the denizens of an online video game forum.

I think the problem I have is that is that it's dangerous to condemn a feature or behavior due to a correlation. It's always better to condemn the feature or behavior that is the problem and maybe associate risks based on statistical samplings. Condemnation by association is how moral panics get started. We have people assuming we need to ban skateboarding because it correlates with delinquency, or we must restrict violent video games because the consumption thereof correlates with recent rampage killings.[footnote]...or for that matter, banning private gun ownership, since possession of a gun logically correlates with gun-related homicide.[/footnote]

This may seem pedantic, but I think such particularity is necessary, since our tendency is to take overly blunt action, to enact overreaching policy, and thus suppress culture and oppress people.

We're much better equipped to debate whether or not cel-shading was a good move for Legend of Zelda than this stuff.

Agreed that the folks on this forum are better equipped for other topics (say game or movie related ones), but that isn't to say we should stop trying our hand at deeper or harsher issues. While we may not be able to solve the riddles of the universe, some of our souls may discover an interest in one puzzle or another and seek to understand it in greater detail.

Also, we are the familiar personalities to the rest who hang out here, so this is the easier place to ask before someone gets poo-pooed as a crackpot on a journeyman thread.

238U

 

[manic_depressive13]

Genetics is the main reason incest is an issue. If there's no chance of having children with congenital birth defects, and the relationship is between two consenting adults, that's fine. If I were to meet someone who was nice enough and responsible about what they're doing, I doubt I'd care if they're fucking their sibling. It's not really any of my business.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

ha ha, hilarious. Actually the reason I want to dissuade the whole 'genetics' issue is because often these discussions degrade into people yelling numbers about the odds of genetic defects and why that should be the sole reason why blah blah blah...it's really tiring as it feels like people are smoke-screening the real reason that they dislike incest: it's icky.

That's pretty much a given at this point. From personal experience it seems as if the majority of posters on whatever issue posts in terms of their own preconceptions without bothering to either look it up properly or think it through properly - what remains is just the residual emotional attachment to a topic that if strong enough provides an equally firm basis of getting worked up about and jumping at the nearest possibility of reaffirming their personal feelings while not bothering if their conclusion is any way harmful to someone else as long as they aren't afflicted.

and if someone finds it icky i'd rather they just say "i find it icky" then try to justify it with numbers that ultimately don't effect society at large. Even if incest were widely accepted, it's unlikely that it would be commonplace as most people are ismply not attracted to their family members, so it would hardly become a widespread epidemic.

Naturally, the people who opt for a ban of such a practice should provide rational reasons for doing so i.e. citing relevant journals and presenting relevant data as to why this should be case; Your claim above, however, should not exempt from scrutiny and the need for providing enough evidence to back it, either.

Lastly, incest is not my 'pet issue' i'd just like to see a discussion that doesn't resort to people slinging numbers around like they mean something.

Properly researching a topic takes time and effort and if we are completely honest I doubt anyone can have an educated opinion about such a topic without years of proper investigation. However, If your simple aim with this thread was to make those people question their resolve and their bias to prefer emotional investment over the use of data, you have failed - considering the argument you carefully plucked out constitutes one of the main arguments of the opposition whose merit needs to be properly discussed you have undermined the resolve of your own position and displayed an inherent emotionally charged bias. Such is not conductive if you really want to change the mind of those you speak to - oh and I'm saying that as someone who is largely on your side btw.

 

[The Funslinger]

No kids, no animals, beyond that it's all your own business.

What about trees? They have feelings too, you know.

I know a guy who, while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs has gotten off with trees on at least two occasions.

"Your bark feels so good, gurl!"

But seriously, that tree should totally press charges.

Yeah. It was done against that tree's Willow, and that's not Oak-ay.

 

[Beautiful Tragedy]

It's icky!

lol all jokes aside there's really no other argument other than genetics. On a personal level it's just wrong (in my eyes). I have a absolutely beautiful cousin (she was a model) but i would never want to have sex with her...she my COUSIN!

 

[Mikeyfell]

How about nepotism? Can I bring up that? (Even though it's derived from the Latin word for Nephew)

Nepotism comes from Archbishops and Popes fucking nuns. In that circumstances, calling their male progeny nepoti (id est, nephews) was a euphemism, and of course they'd want their own nephews to succeed them, ergo nepotism.

238U

That is one definition, another is preference based more on familiarity than merit.
I've never felt incestuous feelings so I might be way off base but, it could be something like "I'm suposed to sleep with girls I love, and who do I love more than my sister? Right?"

Or proximity... It's just a guess.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

It has the dangerously high potential of causing long-term damage for those involved when it comes to forming future social relationships.

 

[penguindude42]

It's icky!

lol all jokes aside there's really no other argument other than genetics. On a personal level it's just wrong (in my eyes). I have a absolutely beautiful cousin (she was a model) but i would never want to have sex with her...she my COUSIN!

You're both women, so go for it next time you see her.

And that, folks, is my opinion on this topic.

 

[Beautiful Tragedy]

It's icky!

lol all jokes aside there's really no other argument other than genetics. On a personal level it's just wrong (in my eyes). I have a absolutely beautiful cousin (she was a model) but i would never want to have sex with her...she my COUSIN!

You're both women, so go for it next time you see her.

And that, folks, is my opinion on this topic.

lol naw, she's married to a wonderful guy! and i love her as family. I just cannot do that...

 

[General Vagueness]

I can't, not completely, genetics is part of my stance. Depending on how far you're willing to reach, it's the majority if not all of anyone's stance (in that genetics largely makes us who we are).

 

[Jacco]

So then why do we allow old women to have sex and to procreate? Not only does the child of an older woman have a greater chance for defects, but may have a social stigma of having mom mistaken for grandma or worse yet, being raised without a mom when she dies of old age and possibly orphaned.

Statistically, an embryo has a higher chance of defects through incest than through old age with a healthy donor. The entire point of sexual reproduction is to vary the genetic information of the species and allow for greater variation. It would depend on how "closely" related the incestuous couple was but for the most part the genetic info will be similar enough that risk of problems occurring is higher than with two non-realted but elderly people.

 

[Aramis Night]

So then why do we allow old women to have sex and to procreate? Not only does the child of an older woman have a greater chance for defects, but may have a social stigma of having mom mistaken for grandma or worse yet, being raised without a mom when she dies of old age and possibly orphaned.

Statistically, an embryo has a higher chance of defects through incest than through old age with a healthy donor. The entire point of sexual reproduction is to vary the genetic information of the species and allow for greater variation. It would depend on how "closely" related the incestuous couple was but for the most part the genetic info will be similar enough that risk of problems occurring is higher than with two non-realted but elderly people.

Donor? Donating what? Doesn't sound like you're talking about sex when you bring up donors. Do you have any sources supporting your contention that a single generation of incest will negatively effect the offspring? And if so to what degree? My point about older women (and to a lesser degree older men) is a variable risk. The older the participants, the greater the risk. Are you alleging that even a normal 90 yr old couple still has less risk than a pair of 20 something cousins/siblings would have of genetic defects? If not then at what age should we also keep older couple's from having sex?

 

[Jacco]

Donor? Donating what? Doesn't sound like you're talking about sex when you bring up donors. Do you have any sources supporting your contention that a single generation of incest will negatively effect the offspring? And if so to what degree? My point about older women (and to a lesser degree older men) is a variable risk. The older the participants, the greater the risk. Are you alleging that even a normal 90 yr old couple still has less risk than a pair of 20 something cousins/siblings would have of genetic defects? If not then at what age should we also keep older couple's from having sex?

Sperm donor; simply meaning the man who provides the sperm to fertilize the egg in whatever method.

I have seen sources somewhere. I'd have to find them but I'm not going to spend the time doing that for an internet debate no one actually gives a shit about. Too much work and I have finals.

The older the participants are also comes with a lower risk of pregnancy. Short of hormone therapy meant to keep it going (or in the case of a woman recently, to start it back up), most women stop menstruating by age 60. No menstruation means no baby so the possibility of genetic defects becomes a moot point. Now if you want to argue the ethics of having a baby past age 60, then that is a different discussion and my stance would remain the same.

Regardless, unless there is no chance of pregnancy between the incestuous couple, incest should not happen. Period. If one or both are sterile, then I guess I don't see a problem with it outside of it bucking societal norms.

 

[Aramis Night]

Donor? Donating what? Doesn't sound like you're talking about sex when you bring up donors. Do you have any sources supporting your contention that a single generation of incest will negatively effect the offspring? And if so to what degree? My point about older women (and to a lesser degree older men) is a variable risk. The older the participants, the greater the risk. Are you alleging that even a normal 90 yr old couple still has less risk than a pair of 20 something cousins/siblings would have of genetic defects? If not then at what age should we also keep older couple's from having sex?

Sperm donor; simply meaning the man who provides the sperm to fertilize the egg in whatever method.

I have seen sources somewhere. I'd have to find them but I'm not going to spend the time doing that for an internet debate no one actually gives a shit about. Too much work and I have finals.

The older the participants are also comes with a lower risk of pregnancy. Short of hormone therapy meant to keep it going (or in the case of a woman recently, to start it back up), most women stop menstruating by age 60. No menstruation means no baby so the possibility of genetic defects becomes a moot point. Now if you want to argue the ethics of having a baby past age 60, then that is a different discussion and my stance would remain the same.

Regardless, unless there is no chance of pregnancy between the incestuous couple, incest should not happen. Period. If one or both are sterile, then I guess I don't see a problem with it outside of it bucking societal norms.

You do realize that sperm donors don't actually have sex with the woman in question right? And in the interest of not being sexist, ill go ahead and throw old men into the ring too since they can still procreate till death, but also with increased odds of defects. If your unwilling to obtain sources, rather than debate the point, ill let it stand. I'm just looking for consistency. If your primary concern is genetic fitness than it would be just as reasonable to argue against old people having sex as well. Anything else is just inconsistent reasoning.

 

[Ratties]

A hard thing for most people to talk about. Really not discussed all that much because most people like to pretend it doesn't exist. Can honestly say that I did stare at my cousins boobs for longer than I should have. Had gone swimming, she has huge knockers. I didn't feel weird about it, I didn't see the whole boob because she was wearing a bikini. Even though I don't want to see her naked, I can understand that some people would want to go for it.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

So you're handicapping the argument by ignoring the most important reasons against it? That's like trying to discuss the argument against pedophilia but prohibiting the mention of law. And to think that the genetic argument is just a scapegoat indicates that you don't understand genetics and the slew of medical complications that come with inbred progeny.

I DO understand genetics and that argument to be frank is (mostly) a bunch of rabid indoctrinated horse shit. (If you cant tell the bastardisation of biology that happens whenever this topic comes up pisses me off)

People dont hate incest because they think it makes mutant babies. People think it makes mutant babies because they hate incest for irrational societal reasons.

Cousin-cousin children have a 4% chance to have a genetic abnormality. 2% is the mean for the general population.

Brother-sister have a 25% ish chance of abnormality. 75% chance of a normal baby.

Genetics IS an argument and the general consensus IS based in some truth. There is an increased chance. The idea that two people related at all will spit out some rabid tentacle demon? Pure horse shit fueled by the desire to have ideas supported by facts that honestly dont exist. There is NO evidence that its almost nearly as bad as people make it sound. NONE. Exaggeration comes into play because people WANT to feel justified hating it. To be honest i dont care what people do, but biology is important and this is THE most bullshit "Fact we all know because we know it" regarding biology in the public mind. I hate it.

Did you read the rest of my post? And why would you chance a 25% abnormality that could cripple a person from birth just because you lack social skills and are only able to get close to a family member because they're a captive audience? I would never knowingly procreate with a incest human to avoid medical complications, and so should everyone else. Yeah, the effects of inbreeding could be stifled, but only over the course of several generations. That's a lot of dead babies. And the only way for that to be viable is if that inbred family stayed on an island detached from any outside genes, forever. So yeah, lets not kill off the human race please. Also, I didn't make any mention of mutant tentacle babies, so I'm not sure why you went off on a tangent.

I don't like incest mainly because of the genetic distortion and how making it acceptable could damage the gene pool. Darwin's already slacking enough as it is. If there were no risk of genetic defects, then I wouldn't give a damn, just like gay sex. I wouldn't oppose it, but I would still find it icky, and I'm free to that opinion.

 

[Aesir23]

Sorry OP, you can't exactly exclude genetics from the argument because it's the primary reason people have such a problem with it. Otherwise marrying within your own family would still be as common as it was even as recent as 150 years ago (at least among the wealthy). Sure, one incident of inbreeding won't mean that you'll automatically pop out a child with horrific health problems but it's not a good idea to have sustained inbreeding over a long period of time. The prime example being Charles II of Spain of the infamous Hapsburg family. His family tree looked like a ball of yarn by the time it got to him and he was suffering from some pretty serious problems.

That said, if there were no genetic problems with it and the people involved were mutually consenting adults then I have no reason to be opposed to it.

 

[Keith Pullman]

CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people do try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to ?mutant? or ?deformed? babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don?t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. Ever hear of Huntington's Disease? It is perfectly legal for people with that to marry and reproduce. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can?t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say ?There is a power differential.? This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning. A 20-year-old woman can consent to group sex with five 40-something-year-old strangers, or the President of the United States, but can't consent to sex with her 21-year-old brother?

Some say ?There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one?s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.

Don't like it? Don't do it. But let other people have the relationships they want.