Incest?

[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.

 

[Keith Pullman]

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual incest. 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 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 other's love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people 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. 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.

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.

Some people who say it is wrong seem to have no problem with complete strangers having sex. So get over it, all of you who want your personal disgust to dictate the lives of others.

 

[Entitled]

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.

I agree that people should probably avoid incestous pregnancy if possible (though ultimately it should be their choice).

But everything else that you said... wouldn't these all apply to gay couples having children? "Imagine someone having two fathers and no mother! How could they be normally raised in such an abnormal environment? And they would surely be bullied for it in school as well."

 

[Relish in Chaos]

But everything else that you said... wouldn't these all apply to gay couples having children? "Imagine someone having to fathers and no mother! How could they be normally raised in such an abnormal environment? And they would surely be bullied for it in school as well."

Because nothing's been shown to support the notion that the absence of specifically a mother or a father harms the child, otherwise people would be vilifying single parents just as much as same-sex parents. And the fact that most gay people have an understanding of sexual boundaries, whereas many children of incestuous partnerships probably won't.

And I'd wager that you'd get bullied much more for your parents being siblings than you would having parents of the same sex. One benefit of having same-sex parents anyway is that you tend to be more tolerable of homosexuality, same-sex relationships, and sexual fluidity in general. But I guess you could say "it's still bullying nonetheless", so I discard that argument, because kids get bullied for all kinds of shitty reasons. It's just that some make you more of a target than others.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Genetically-Biologically there is no problem with it. There isn't a magic incest gene that gets triggered and makes a child retarded. If both parents are smart the child will likely be smart, if both parents are predisposed to cleft lips, then the child will probably have one. It's no different than having a child with someone else who is a close genetic match who isn't related at all. And the need for genetic diversity is mostly irrelevant, we have 6 billion+ people and are as genetically diverse as we are going to be without sending people to other planets far away for millions of years to split the evolutionary tract.

The real stigma with incest comes from the development of social-economic relationships from thousands of years ago. A poor peasant who fell on hard times would have almost no safety net whatsoever, he could borrow some money from his parents and that was it. But if he had a wife from another family, she could borrow from her parents. If he had kids who had married into other families, he could ask them. And all together they could help him get through his problems.

If however his children had married each other, and he had married a cousin or sister then he would had way less people who he had familial bonds to and thus a much smaller and weaker economic safety net. So out of that a stigma grew against incest and accumulated superfluous ideas to discourage it which in the 19th and 20th centuries manifested as incest children are retarded. Which again is patently untrue, unless both incestuous parents happened to be genetically pre-disposed to have a retarded child with anyone blood relation or otherwise.

We can see the reverse factors at play in the rich. If you are super rich already(an emperor, king, baron, aristocratic southern plantation owner: you have no need for a safety net because you aren't going to fall on hard times. But if you marry out of the family, or your children marry out of the family and they have hard times then you are obligated to give money to them to keep them on their feet. Thus where third and second press people want to disperse the wealth so they can all benefit, you want to concentrate it so that you don't have to give it to other people. Which is why most of the monarchs and aristocratic families in Europe intermarried for thousands of years. And very very few of the royal families were considered crazy or stupid, though later on they had a huge predisposition to be hemophiliacs.

That being said, I would probably never enter into an incestuous relationship. There's a social stigma attached to it that is not worth dealing with, and there's plenty of fish in the sea that there's no reason to.

I think most people are genetically coded to not be attracted to siblings.

It's psychological coding to some degree. Anyone you've lived in close proximity to for the first like 10 years of your life is usually someone you are not sexually attracted to. But that applies to anyone you've lived with (foster family, close friends, ect.) The psychological function has a name but I forget it now.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

Just to clear up the facts, she was older than him and at the time they had only known each other for two years. It wasn't exactly a taboo situation, and he explained that he definitely wanted to, but the idea of doing it with a person who could even remotely be classified as "sister" prevented him from being able to get it up. I don't really know much more than that since I didn't really want to know the gory details.

 

[Entitled]

But everything else that you said... wouldn't these all apply to gay couples having children? "Imagine someone having to fathers and no mother! How could they be normally raised in such an abnormal environment? And they would surely be bullied for it in school as well."

Because nothing's been shown to support the notion that the absence of specifically a mother or a father harms the child, otherwise people would be vilifying single parents just as much as same-sex parents. And the fact that most gay people have an understanding of sexual boundaries, whereas many children of incestuous partnerships probably won't.

Nothing's been shown, but people keep saying it. And noting's been shown to prove that that, say, children raised by a pair of siblings wouldn't "have an understanding of sexual boundaries", either. It seems like you are still using the same basic rhetoric as them, that "it's just weird and abnormal, so who knows what might happen?"

Besides, what sexual boundaries are you talking about? That they might be grow up being indoctrinated to be incestous?

 

[doomspore98]

For some reason all I can think of is game of thrones. I personally wouldn't do that because of the genetic disorders that can occur, but if your not worried about that kind of thing, have at it.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Besides, what sexual boundaries are you talking about? That they might be grow up being indoctrinated to be incestous?

If someone's parents are brother and sister, what keeps the child from thinking it's not okay to mess around with their younger siblings once the parents have more children?

I believe that's what he means by a lack of boundaries.

 

[SpaceBat]

Is my sisters name Emma Watson?

No?

No incest for me then.

I'd like to think her being Emma Watson would make a difference - because it's Emma Watson - but I'm sure I'd be as disgusted of the thought as I am right now.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think most people are genetically coded to not be attracted to siblings.

It's not genetics, which is why children who are separated as youth or relatives outside one's social network tend to be immune.

Cousins I have no problem with, as there is no chance of in-breeding etc.

Inbreeding relates to cousins as well. It's not as intense, but then the odds of an incestuous pairing leading to birth defects is lower than that of a woman in her 40s in the first place. And I have to ask, if birth defects are the problem, are you against older women breeding?

For my opinion: I have little concern for what consenting adults do in their own relationships. Long as it's not the kind of incest when uncle Bubba takes his daughter out back to explore her "special place," or something similar, it's not my concern.

 

[Stoic raptor]

I am nauseated just thinking about it.

It bothers me a lot.

 

[Overusedname]

I don't give a rat's ass about societal norms. I care about science, so I'll share this.

http://family.jrank.org/pages/847/Incest-Effects-on-Victims.html

And yes, this is a progressive, scientific website that also demands for acceptance and tolerance of homosexual and transgender parents and family, as the only downsides are related to other peoples bigotry. That article addresses the brother-sister consensual stuff to.

 

[Byere]

I wouldn't be opposed to it if my family were a lot better looking xD

In all seriousness, I have no problem with it, but I don't think I'd be able to do it even if I did find my sister attractive