Incest?

[Flippincrazy]

This thread amuses me with its mix of outright revulsion, the classic 'if my sister/brother was super hawt' and then the mature-ish discussion of the potential consequences.

OP, the 'fooling around' with your elder brother type of incest that you described is pretty okay in my book - however you have to bare in mind that said elder sibling might be exploiting the younger sibling - just something to bare in mind aside from the insta-EWNO! response.

Know what the most entertaining thing about this thread is? People playing the genetics card. True, there is an increased probability of genetic disabilities past from the related parents to the children, but think of two things. One, this is only a marginal increase that'll only really express itself after many occasions of inbreeding within a family tree - which is statistically highly unlikely among most - or hard luck. Secondly, if we're thinking in a pseudo-objective manner and claiming that incest is wrong due to potential genetic abnormalities being more prevalent - do we also conclude that it is morally wrong for people with outstanding genetic conditions to have children?

Sure, the idea itself is rather sick in my mind, but if others want to do it...I think we should revise are thinking on this matter, culturally-speaking. It's not only rednecks and the nobility that do such things, quite average nice people do - should we criticize them?

 

[Vivi22]

Its beacause the chances of an an offspring recieving genetic defects are GREATLYincreased.

Not entirely true. The increase in risk is certainly higher with siblin-sibling relationships since they likely share the genes for any hereditary conditions one may carry, but even branching out to first cousins (still quite closely related), the risk of child mortality is only about 4% higher. Even then, I haven't seen a study that didn't have a ridiculously low sample size so it's hard to say how prevalent problems actually are since this entire thing we're debating is a massive social taboo, and to large extent, illegal in many parts of the world.

Even still, this isn't a valid argument unless you're going to argue that people with genetic conditions shouldn't reproduce since the odds are much higher they'll pass them on to children. But since we don't do that, making a special case for this one situation we find objectionable is hypocritical.

If you were to tell any other couple for any other reason to not have kids, best case scenario people laugh at you. Worst case, it's seen as offensive. It was law, it would be seen as unjust and struck down.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Its beacause the chances of an an offspring recieving genetic defects are GREATLY increased.

Yes.

From 2% to a whopping 4%.

 

[Ferisar]

The only kind of incest I'd ever find on a positive scale is hot lesbian sisters.
Past that, I don't care what people do with each other, as long as they know they may make a child that is likely to be genetically inferior and have a crappy childhood.

If it's just a fling thing, even less care for it.

So, really, do what you want 'cause a pirate is free, I guess.

 

[Entitled]

We have a word for forcibly limiting reproductive rights to increase genetic perfection, and that word is "Eugenics".

You know who was a big fan of eugenics?

 

[Overusedname]

Sophisticated mammals, our cousins, have set up social norms that seem to minimize incest naturally, free of moral conditioning, where as homosexuality in animals runs rampant and is harmless. This is true of Apes and wolves, for example. These creatures function on raw instinct. Incest is still in the animal kingdom all over the place, but for the ones most similar to us, it seems to be minimal.

The problem with evolutionary psychology is, that it's not necessarily compatible with modern morality.

Yes, there is the Westermarck effect, but nature also tells us to find the people most similar to us physically the most attractive, as a way to separate herds from each other, keep a breeding community closed to outsider groups, and prevent the spread of foreign diseases.

So, should we outlaw interracial marriages? After all, these people are going against what nature and science tells the rest of us!

The thing is, that most of these evolutionary psychological effects are often contradicting each other, not shared by us to the same degree, often they are rendered obselete by modern society, and many of them are overwritten by all that human emotional-rational-moral thinking that we are doing.

Once again: I know. But once again, why do creatures of the same species have sex with different breeds anyway? I'm not saying it's always applicable, but the behavior of our cousins are always something to consider. There is evidence in nature, both within humanity and out, that says we weren't biologically meant to do this. Morally is a different discussion. But it's important to note that unlike gay sex and polygamy, incest appears to be connected to real problems. Big ones. Social science suggests similar issues. These conclusions are subject to change over time. Like I said, I'm playing the waiting game.

You have to understand I've looked into this extensively, and currently have literally no reason to accept that it's harmless right now. When I get evidence to the contrary...well, you get the point.

 

[Icehearted]

The whole kiddy incest thing might be okay, I often hear about kids playing "doctor" not with sexual intent (I guess? since they're too young and don't understand) but just out of curiosity.

Nope. It's been proven that children engage in sexual role-play and often develop fascination with sexuality at very young ages (I'm thinking just after the toddler years and in grade-school, but I couldn't specifically cite number off the top of my head). It goes beyond playing doctor, and is often actually reflective on perceived gender roles (playing house for example). I saw a fascinating study on this years ago, where they observed boys and girls having sleep overs, and the sexual jargon among them when they thought they were not being filmed. Among these was a girl, I think 4-6 years, wanting a costume to look like Jasmine from Aladdin because she "liked the sexy of it".

As for incest, often it begins with siblings of the opposite sex. It's actually also totally normal, or so I've read.

Another fun fact: incest is often the most prevalent sexual fantasy people indulge in around the world. Again, I can't cite from off the top of my head (this was also something I learned about more than a decade ago). So for all it's detractors, myself included, go figure.

 

[Entitled]

Another fun fact: incest is often the most prevalent sexual fantasy people indulge in around the world. Again, I can't cite from off the top of my head (this was also something I learned about more than a decade ago). So for all it's detractors, myself included, go figure.

Also, it's interesting that incest as a fetish, is often unrelated to sexual attraction to one's relatives.

For example I wasn't ever attracted to my sisters (I don't even like them as people), but I always found brother-sister incest stories titillating. It's hard to explain, but there is just something truly romantic about a relationship between two people who are so close together, wo loved each other in their whole lives, and them taking it to a next level even against all taboos.

 

[Nannernade]

The one reason people have a problem with it is because it's a stigma, like if someone goes to a psychiatrist they're automatically labeled crazy, also a stigma. Personally I'm not a fan of it but to each their own I s'pose.

 

[Seydaman]

Morally I do not believe there is anything wrong with having sex with those related to you by blood. The only caution is not to create a child, as the rate of defects are notably higher. I think the cultural stigma against it is frankly, dumb.

 

[Ashadow700]

Well, one thing that annoys me more then anything is when other people tell me what to do or not to do, when the specific action in question has absolutly no affect on anyone other then myself. So, to avoid hypocrocy, if a brother and sister would like to... do things, go ahead. I guess.
Having children together on the other hand - that is crossing my line.

But let's bring another hypothetical scenario into this discussion: Say that there was no genetic defect to having kids with your relatives. Would incent then still be a "wrong" thing, and what are the specific reasons for this?
I would have to say... not really. Aside for the whole moral aspect of it, which change from culture and time period, I can not think of any actual reasons for it to be a bad thing....
F* me, how did I come to this conclusion?

And would I sleep with my little sister? NO! No, I would not.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I do not support it. Neither does genetics. From what I've heard every human culture has rules against it as well. I guess you can do what you like but nobody is going to ever support you, only turn a blind eye if not be negative.

 

[verdant monkai]

Kind of revolted by this post.

Then I thought about it again.... then again.......
I was trying to come up for a reason why incest is bad, and the only one I can find is that society says it is. Some Science suggests that incestuous kids would not actually have any disorders and it would take a few generations of inbreeding to fuck up any genetics.
(someone can respond with better science if they want)

I think society says it is bad because the bible said at a certain point incest was not ok with God anymore, and families liked to marry their kids off to other families to make social connections, Or something.

As for me and incest I still think it is pretty disgusting, and I would never consider going anywhere near my little brother, and I think anyone who instigates any sort of sex with a younger sibling is disgusting and should be ashamed.

Although OP cannot be all bad as they have rarity as their Avatar.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

or there could be no sex at all.

...?

You mean 'no intercourse,' I assume. Oral sex and manual sex are still sex.

If you mean without those kinds of sex too... then does it even count as incest? I'm really asking here, I have no idea.

 

[DugMachine]

The whole kiddy incest thing might be okay, I often hear about kids playing "doctor" not with sexual intent (I guess? since they're too young and don't understand) but just out of curiosity.

Nope. It's been proven that children engage in sexual role-play and often develop fascination with sexuality at very young ages (I'm thinking just after the toddler years and in grade-school, but I couldn't specifically cite number off the top of my head). It goes beyond playing doctor, and is often actually reflective on perceived gender roles (playing house for example). I saw a fascinating study on this years ago, where they observed boys and girls having sleep overs, and the sexual jargon among them when they thought they were not being filmed. Among these was a girl, I think 4-6 years, wanting a costume to look like Jasmine from Aladdin because she "liked the sexy of it".

As for incest, often it begins with siblings of the opposite sex. It's actually also totally normal, or so I've read.

Another fun fact: incest is often the most prevalent sexual fantasy people indulge in around the world. Again, I can't cite from off the top of my head (this was also something I learned about more than a decade ago). So for all it's detractors, myself included, go figure.

Interesting. I can sort of attest to this. I think I was maybe 6 when I started 'playing doctor' not just with cousins but with neighbors and such. Kids do a lot of sexual exploration at young ages without full on intercourse. Er at least I did I should say.

 

[Gabanuka]

We have a word for forcibly limiting reproductive rights to increase genetic perfection, and that word is "Eugenics".

You know who was a big fan of eugenics?

And there we have it everyone, Godwin's law has been invoked. I think that's a good sign this thread is over.

As per my routine I now present a different area of discussion: High Res Fruit Thread.

 

[Shadowstar38]

or there could be no sex at all.

...?

You mean 'no intercourse,' I assume. Oral sex and manual sex are still sex.

If you mean without those kinds of sex too... then does it even count as incest? I'm really asking here, I have no idea.

1. Sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
2. The crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

My guess would be no.
And I've never heard of a platonic incest relationship

 

[Relish in Chaos]

My opinion on incest, or for that matter, any other ?deviant? sexual behaviour is: I don?t care what the hell you do privately in your own bedroom, as long as it?s consensual and doesn?t harm anyone. That being said, I don?t think people in incestuous relationships (as in, parent-child, siblings) should have children because, aside from the risk of the child having a genetic defect, it would just fuck them up socially. I don?t see how you could feasibly manage a stable relationship with someone who was both your mother and your sister. Not to mention that they might not even have any concept of boundaries, and that kid will get the shit bullied out of him.

And no, I would never engage in incest, because I?ve never once been attracted to any of my relatives. I?m not the kind of person who seeks to sexualize all his relationships either. Not that implying that all incestuous people do that, though. I?ve seen my mother and sister naked and in revealing clothing before, and my reactions have always been either disgust or apathy. I think my parents are, like, second or third cousins, though.

However, fictional incest can be quite a turn-on, probably because of the taboo aspect of it all. Not when it involves children, though.

Oh, and I find it odd that everyone is going with reproductive issues here. Has no one considered gay incest? Or, you know, using condoms?

Gay incest seems to be much rarer, and condoms aren't 100% effective, you know. Not saying that people who wish to engage incest should refrain from sex at all costs just because of that, but they definitely shouldn't be looking to have children that will almost inevitably suffer, biologically and/or psychologically, because of their irresponsibility. And if one of them does somehow still get pregnant, they should abort the poor fucker.

Friend of mine has this thing where if a woman is even tangentially part of the family, he wouldn't be able to get it up even if he tried. He had a sexual encounter with his step sister when he was in highschool, but according to him, it didn't get far. Then last year, the sister of his brother's wife, i.e. his sister-in-law, had a similar experience with him. If the person can be defined as his "sister-anything", it's apparently a huge turn off despite his attraction to her.

Apart from the "sister-in-law" part (they're not even related, and if anything, it might bring the family closer - or maybe that's not he'd want), I can't really blame him. With step-siblings, if you grew up with them, you'd still just see them as your sister and have that sibling-like relationship with them. It'd be just be too awkward, even if both of them were attracted to each other. Perhaps you could compare it to being attracted to a 12-year-old girl or something, but, aside from the fact that it's illegal, you'd never pursue an actual relationship with them because they might not be mentally mature enough.

We have a word for forcibly limiting reproductive rights to increase genetic perfection, and that word is "Eugenics".

You know who was a big fan of eugenics?

You're seriously going to play the Hitler card?

This isn?t about ?genetic perfection?, and you know it, so cut the bullshit comparison. You ever heard of Godwin's law?

a girl, I think 4-6 years, wanting a costume to look like Jasmine from Aladdin because she "liked the sexy of it".

DAFUQ O_O

But let's bring another hypothetical scenario into this discussion: Say that there was no genetic defect to having kids with your relatives. Would incest then still be a "wrong" thing?

Yes, because they likely wouldn?t be able to manage a stable and healthy relationship with relatives who they?d share conflicting relationships with (e.g. your mother being your sister too), as well as the wider family who might, subconsciously or not, turn their nose down at the odd-one-out. They may not even have any concept of boundaries, and probably face severe bullying, much worse than if you were just bullied for having two parents of the same sex. All this would probably make a psychologically troubled being that?d feel like an outsider throughout their life and could only get worse as they grow older and start having mature relationships of their own.

 

[Entitled]

We have a word for forcibly limiting reproductive rights to increase genetic perfection, and that word is "Eugenics".

You know who was a big fan of eugenics?

You're seriously going to play the Hitler card?

This isn?t about ?genetic perfection?, and you know it, so cut the bullshit comparison. You ever heard of Godwin's law?

I was going to say George Bernard Shaw, but Hitler is a good answer, too.