Incest

[The Tibballs]

-Is incest morally wrong? Not if it's consensual.

-In the case of no possible offspring? As long as it's consensual.

-With offspring? Seeing as children that are born to close relatives only have a 1-3% higher chance than non-relatives of having a genetic abnormality, that being said as long as it's consensual.

-Should incest be legally banned? No, there's not real reason to ban it.

-Does the act of incest disgust you? As long as it's consensual, it's doesn't worry me either way, just like homosexual sex.

 

[DRTJR]

Incest is disgusting and leads to the degradation of the family that is doing the act.

 

[Arakasi]

This thread is going to end well.

-Is incest morally wrong?

Nope.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Agreed entirely.
Although I think that having a child from incest (however close the relation is that is considered statistically dangerous for the child) should certainly be banned.

But what about if they used that gene selection thingy-ma-bobby that chose that healthiest genes?
And assuming that doesn't work what about just making them have abortions if it's shown that the fetus has physical or mental disabilities?

That'd be fine assuming it were all accurate.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person trolling these forums that has watched Evangelion,GATTACA, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Blade Runner or Ghost in the Shell.

In this context Eugenics probably doesn't sound that bad, but its like with CCTV, yes, it can be used to spy on you but its only going up for your safety. Well, it's up now, may as well use it to its full potential.

Oh god I hate the movie Gattica. Seriously, despise the thing. And I nothing Blade Runner, I nothing it so very hard.

 

[Mr F.]

Ok, I have been quoted to death. Gonna start by reading everything, then snipping so I can reply all at once. Which is gonna be hell on earth with the formatting, but I will try.

Its arguable that certain acts which evoke instant disgust universally do so for a reason.

But is such disgust universal? If it was universal, then why does incest exist? Also, why are there people who are NOT disgusted by it?

Well, this one is easy: Because people do things which universally disgust other people all the time. One may as well ask why rape or genocide exist (Not that I am equating consensual incest with rape or genocide), people just do shit. Because they enjoy it, because they think that it is right, because morality is subjective (Will expand on that in the end of my post)

Our brain is hardwired to find such acts disgusting because they are detrimental to us.

First of all, I assume you mean detrimental in the long run of the human species in an environment of natural selection.
If you are talking about things detrimental to the human species then that would put a lot of fetish's and philias on that list like masochism or electrocution. Also, that argument could potentially be used against homosexuality or asexuality. However it can also be argued that not reproducing is beneficial to society at the moment.

Also, the brain is varying levels of plastic. Wires move and change every day. Even if such a reaction was "hard-wired" at some point in time, the lack of natural selection in our society has inevitably led to a large variety in the gene pool. There are undoubtedly at least thousands of people who wouldn't have that "hard wire" you're talking about.

Well, I am tired so I cannot label the exact theory. And yes, I know my own disgust is similar on some levels to that used by people to argue against homosexuality and asexuality. Honestly, I am very sexually liberal with regards to most things. I have nothing against furries etc. What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is there business, but I do hold that incest and pedophilia are exclusions to my rule. I will try and explain that at the end of this post (And yes, I DO equate the two.)

Even if you discount any chance of offspring, it is still revolting.

Opinion

This entire thread is about opinions. At no point am I stating anything as objective fact. These are simply my opinions on the matter.

Between a parent and child it is revolting due to the power balance and everything else.

That power balance does not need to affect anything. You're just making an assumption that such distances in power (even if there WAS one in said family) would cause trouble in the first place.

Yes, I am, and I will explain that at the end of my post.

Between siblings it is slightly less vomit inducing yet it is still disgusting on just about every level.

Opinion

I never stated it was anything OTHER then opinion. I find it disgusting. I find the idea of siblings fucking to be disgusting.

I am not talking from a religious standpoint or a genetic standpoint. From a psychological and sociological standpoint, it is revolting.

You still have yet to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I accept that I cannot prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Its an opinion. It cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is simply my opinion. I will try and expand at the end.

The mere thought of it makes me feel slightly ill.

Evidence that your claim is highly influenced by your opinion.

Which I never denied. Why is it that on this forum people seem to think that EVERY OPINION had is held by someone to be beyond any doubt? I do not think my opinion is universal. I think it is an opinion. So many arguments spawn from people refusing to accept that opinions are just bloody opinions.

I mean, I can partially understand it.

Good, a concession.

See above. Its an opinion. I can understand most things, from genocide onwards. I can see the logic behind it, I can see why people do it, I just do not agree with it on any level. Because, in my opinion, it is wrong. Are you seeing a pattern here? xD

The bond between parents and their children is unique, as is the bond between siblings. I know I love my sisters more then I could (currently) love a partner. But you love your partners in a very different way. It might still be unconditional love (hopefully) but it is a different kind of love.

You are making a sweeping generalization based on personal experience. What evidence do you have that says that the two types of love MUST be exclusive?

Did I state that it is exclusive? Not really, no. I stated that the love between your partner is different to the love between your siblings. Because, for the vast majority of people, it is. Can I prove that with a statistic? Well, No. Just find a friend with a hot sibling or a hot parent and ask if they like the idea of fucking them. Chances are they will say no. Very very few people seem to actively think about fucking their family members.

Finally? There is a reason people sometimes choose not to date their closest friends.

Not everyone believes that is a good reason.

"Sometimes choose not to". I did not state it was a good reason. Personally, I do not think it is a good reason. Then again, I can currently see why it is not a good idea. What with my best friend and I recently going through a breakup that is getting progressively messier as time passes. But that is all subjective and, you know, opinion.

Because if it gets fucked up it can destroy friendships. The potential for things to get fucked up if you are fucking your family members is much, MUCH higher and much more destructive.

Frankly, a fucked up relationship is almost always the result of immaturity on one or both sides and the lack of being willing to work things through. Also, there are MANY people who marry their best friends and have been perfectly happy. There are also examples of incestual relationships actually turning out fine.

Yes, sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. A lot of the time it doesn't. Yes, there are examples of people in incestual relationships having a long and happy life fucking their siblings. And good for them. I still find the idea revolting and I still think it is a very bad idea. There are multiple reasons for a relationship fucking up. Not really related to the discussion though, my point still stands.

*SNIP*

You have yet to prove that there would be any conflict in the first place. You haven't even proven that said conflict would MOST LIKELY happen.

Um. Well. Statistically, it is unlikely that a relationship will work. So conflict is likely to occur. Conflict occurs in working relationships. Conflict is part of life. So conflict is likely. And if it got out it would ruin your life. That is just how things are right now.

This is without even properly going into the subtle power relationship and how much it would fuck things up.

I would like to see you go into detail on this.

Will do!

*SNIP*

Well, that *is* pretty arguable.

Yes, it is. I cannot remember the term, its been a while since I have studied psychology. To use an example, there is a reason why maggots make us feel ill. They are bad for us, they indicate rot, rotten food, things which can harm us. That is the logic I am using.

Evolutionary psychology is quite a faulty source for morality.

Opinion! But you are right. Then again, just about every source of morality is faulty if it is your only source of morality.

Your brain might be hardwired to find incest disturbing, but it's also hardwired to find people who are visibly different from your own monkey tribe revolting.

I disagree.

Hence, racism. Also, to find sex between different monkey tribes revolting. Hence, interracial sex taboos. You are hardwired to always agree with the alpha male, to ensure the survival of your tribe.
Also, you are hardwired to find the most fertile, youngest post-pubescent teenage girls the most attractive. Hence, ephebophilia.

We are living in a civilization now, we ought to think past these stupid remnants that don't necessarily make sense any more, not encourage them.

Yes and no. Yes, with regards to interracial sex taboos and all of that shit. Yes, with regards to the very concept of race. No with regards to incest, bestiality and pedophilia.

*SNIP*

That's not a biological problem, but a social one.

Yes, it is.

The idea that a relationship where you are bumping uglies is somehow more likely to "get fucked up" than one where you don't, is entirely caused by sex taboos.

I disagree. More emotions are usually involved, sex complicates things. Not due to social taboos, but due to the endorphins and hormones involved, due to the vulnerability, due to two people having different sex drives etc etc etc.

It's a bit like saying that we shouldn't allow gays to adopt children, because they would be bullied in school for it.

Yes, it is, although I would never argue that.

Which is technicaly true, but there is no fundamental reason for it to be that way to begin with, so it's a problem to be solved, not a barrier. Rather than limiting ourselves, it's more moral to create a world where gay parents' children don't get bullied, even if it's harder.

I agree, and that is a world we should strive towards. However, I do not hold that we should strive towards the acceptance of incest.

Right, now the thing which people wanted me to elaborate on.

Power relationships in families are weird. Every-ones family is unique, yes, but in MOST cases, the parents have the most power and the children have the least. There is a distinct hierarchy present. The same reasoning as to why teachers should not fuck their students applies here. Power relationships, a position of care. It is frowned upon because people are on different levels, that the opportunity for exploitation is HUGE.

Now, is this just societal? Well, Yes, Yes it is. Is it a problem though? In my eyes, No.

People with power fucking people without it should always be frowned upon, should always be stopped where possible.

I simply do not think it is possible to have a healthy romantic relationship with a family member. I simply do not. Yes, you can state that some people do. And that's great for those people. But they, in my eyes, are the outliers. The exceptions. Not the majority.

Now, should something be ruled against just because in the majority of cases it is bad? Well, Technically no. That is referred to as the Tyranny of the Majority, and it is a major problem in some democracies. But much like it is technically possible for someone who is 12 to have a totally and utterly consensual relationship with someone who is 19 does not mean that should be legal. That is an exception. It is possible, but unlikely.

That is the view I have. Personally, Incest revolts me. I accepted that this is just an opinion. It obviously does not revolt you (Although... Part of me, call it the cynic, thinks it is *not* revolting you because you feel like you must argue that it is totally fine because doing so is part of being liberal, accepting just about anything. Call me a cynic if you will.). But I think it is unhealthy to accept incest, pedophilia or bestiality. Because I rank them all the same.

Exploiting someone, or something, that does not have the same power as you. It is wrong. A prison guard should not fuck a prisoner, no matter how consensual it is.

Now it gets different when ages change. And when it is siblings and not parents. I can see the argument that there is nothing wrong with, say, two siblings fucking once they are in their 20's. Because its none of our business etc etc etc. But...

The idea is unhealthy.

Sorry.

We are programmed to find other people outside of our family units to partner up with. Hell, I am no evolutionary biologist but it is rather easy to argue that homosexuality is evolutionarily selected for (A humans primary purpose is not to breed, if it was the menopause would kill because they would now be dead weight. You want me to get into my theory on that matter, PM me, it doesn't have a place here.). But my point is simple, we are supposed to find people outside of our units to live with.

Its what we do. Its what the vast majority do. You get the idea.

For fear of insulting anyone, I find the idea that you are making the decision that your sexual partner should be someone directly related to you to be a sign that you are mentally ill. End of. If you cannot form that kind of connection with someone outside of your family you have issues. You need to get out a lot more. If there are not people around, you need to move.

 

[Mr F.]

- Morally wrong? Yes.
- In the case of no possible offspring? Still wrong, yes.
- With offspring? A new level of wrong.

- Should incest be legally banned? Yes.
- Does the act of incest disgust you? Yes.

Its arguable that certain acts which evoke instant disgust universally do so for a reason. Our brain is hardwired to find such acts disgusting because they are detrimental to us.

I'm pretty sure our brains are hardwired to make decisions. I'm not an animal, acting on instinct, are you? Admit that you've made a judgement, be it a personal one or one that you've been taught to make.

I never denied that I had made a judgment. This thread is about opinions. We are not talking about whether or not gravity exists, we are talking about whether or not we morally agree with something. Which is not objective, everyones morals are subjective. Bleh.

Even if you discount any chance of offspring, it is still revolting. Between a parent and child it is revolting due to the power balance and everything else. Between siblings it is slightly less vomit inducing yet it is still disgusting on just about every level.

Psychologically I'll agree, but you can't just blanket the entire human race with having one rationale

I am not talking from a religious standpoint or a genetic standpoint. From a psychological and sociological standpoint, it is revolting. The mere thought of it makes me feel slightly ill.

>Makes me slightly ill
>me

The thought of gay sex makes a lot of people feel ill; these people generally have repressed homosexual feelings

[/quote]

I actually find that logic to be hilarious. Some people just do not like the idea, at all. And some of those people are strait. I know its comforting to think that EVERYONE who finds something disgusting is secretly in denial. But it simply is not true.

Do you like maggots? (Not equating gay sex to maggots, I have a fucking phobia of maggots). Very, Very few people do. Those that do not like maggots are revolted by maggots. Those that are revolted by maggots do not want to fuck maggots.

I mean, I can partially understand it. The bond between parents and their children is unique, as is the bond between siblings. I know I love my sisters more then I could (currently) love a partner. But you love your partners in a very different way. It might still be unconditional love (hopefully) but it is a different kind of love.

Woah...

Diggy Shiggy

*SNIP*

*SNIP*

That was the most beautiful denying of ones own feelings I have ever seen.

I think you need to have a talk with your sisters and tell them about your feelings[/quote]

Didnt quote you in the huge reply I made. Sorry. Also, sorry if this is a double post.

I like how you are implying that I have feelings towards my sisters because I find incest revolting. Its such an awesome piece of logic. Like when people say "Thou Doth Protest Too Much".

It is possible for someone to just hate an idea. I despise capitalism, under your logic I am an anarcho-capitalist in denial. Nope.

Please actually address my points.

Oh god I fucked up the formatting. And I cannot work out how to fix it. I am rather tired and I need to go and get my washing from the laundrette.

Just a quick request to humanity in general: Can we please stop assuming that everyone who dislikes something secretely loves it? I find it annoying. I find it an infuriating way of people trying to end arguments. I know in some cases its true, some of the most violent homophobes are homosexuals in denial. Yet I think you will find that a lot, probably MOST homophobes are not homosexuals in denial. Much like a lot, quite probably most, people who are anti-racism are not massive racists.

The logic is just stupid.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

The only problem I have is with having kids. People should take more care. Adopt, use protection or do a vasectomy (is this how you write it?).

Spoiler

I find gay twin incest so Goddamn hot sooo... is that answer enough?

 

[Angie7F]

nope, nope, and nope.
I think it really is none of my business. However this may be because I dont have siblings or cousins to really think about how this could be repulsive or not.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I actually find that logic to be hilarious. Some people just do not like the idea, at all. And some of those people are strait. I know its comforting to think that EVERYONE who finds something disgusting is secretly in denial. But it simply is not true.

Do you like maggots? (Not equating gay sex to maggots, I have a fucking phobia of maggots). Very, Very few people do. Those that do not like maggots are revolted by maggots. Those that are revolted by maggots do not want to fuck maggots.

Maggots aren't sexual

But I know of people who developed a phobia of insects after watching aliens after they absorbed all the sexual metaphors

OH! they could be considered phallic though

Didn't quote you in the huge reply I made. Sorry. Also, sorry if this is a double post.

I like how you are implying that I have feelings towards my sisters because I find incest revolting. Its such an awesome piece of logic. Like when people say "Thou Doth Protest Too Much".

Well in this case you do

It is possible for someone to just hate an idea. I despise capitalism, under your logic I am an anarcho-capitalist in denial. Nope.

Stop assuming my observations hyperbolic please, this is a big problem you have. Every situation is unique, and therefore every situation. You have a problem with hyperbole.

Not assuming that EVERYONE that hates someone secretly likes it, I'm saying you in particular have a siscon complex based on the subtext of what you have typed out in this thread.

Please actually address my points.

Your points can be summed up into "I'm my opinion incest is wrong, because in my opinion the human brain is wired to be repulsed by it, so if you disagree with my opinion in my opinion you are a disgusting human being."

Thou doth protest too much

Especially when your opinion can be traced to a repressed Siscon Complex, I just can't take your point's seriously

Just a quick request to humanity in general: Can we please stop assuming that everyone who dislikes something secretely loves it? I find it annoying. I find it an infuriating way of people trying to end arguments. I know in some cases its true, some of the most violent homophobes are homosexuals in denial. Yet I think you will find that a lot, probably MOST homophobes are not homosexuals in denial. Much like a lot, quite probably most, people who are anti-racism are not massive racists.

The logic is just stupid.

So are straw man arguments

 

[Vegosiux]

I have a better one.

If you get disowned from your family, can you legally marry your (now former) siblings? That's one to bend people's brains a little.

As for sex in and off itself, well, as long the SSC rule is in effect, it's no problem at all as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Andy Shandy]

It took 4 pages for an Arrested Development reference (at least I didn't notice any)?

For shame, Escapist!

Anyway, so long as it's two consenting adults, I'm OK with it. And by OK I mean that I would personally would never do it, and I might think of the two people doing it to be a bit weird. Beyond that though I wouldn't say it was particularly morally wrong, or should be banned.

 

[The Ubermensch]

Oh god I hate the movie Gattica. Seriously, despise the thing. And I nothing Blade Runner, I nothing it so very hard.

I bet you enjoy Nickleback too.

Come on, you're talking about eugenics supporting eugenics, even if its passively. Please tell me you've read some scholarly articles about the socolgical impact of eugenics before you start talking about it.

 

[Xanex]

Between consenting adults, I could care less what they do.

On a personal note I do have a sister who is attractive. But the thought.......Ugh! I just threw up in my mouth alittle.

 

[Xanex]

If you get disowned from your family, can you legally marry your (now former) siblings?

Actually thats fairly easy to reply to. The answer is no. According to the law you are still blood siblings and cannot marry. Personally I don't care. But most civilized countries laws do not recoginse family disownment.

 

[Mr F.]

I actually find that logic to be hilarious. Some people just do not like the idea, at all. And some of those people are strait. I know its comforting to think that EVERYONE who finds something disgusting is secretly in denial. But it simply is not true.

Do you like maggots? (Not equating gay sex to maggots, I have a fucking phobia of maggots). Very, Very few people do. Those that do not like maggots are revolted by maggots. Those that are revolted by maggots do not want to fuck maggots.

Maggots aren't sexual

But I know of people who developed a phobia of insects after watching aliens after they absorbed all the sexual metaphors

Didn't quote you in the huge reply I made. Sorry. Also, sorry if this is a double post.

I like how you are implying that I have feelings towards my sisters because I find incest revolting. Its such an awesome piece of logic. Like when people say "Thou Doth Protest Too Much".

Well in this case you do

It is possible for someone to just hate an idea. I despise capitalism, under your logic I am an anarcho-capitalist in denial. Nope.

Stop assuming my observations hyperbolic please, this is a big problem you have. Every situation is unique, and therefore every situation. You have a problem with hyperbole.

Not assuming that EVERYONE that hates someone secretly likes it, I'm saying you in particular have a siscon complex based on the subtext of what you have typed out in this thread.

Please actually address my points.

Your points can be summed up into "I'm my opinion incest is wrong, because in my opinion the human brain is wired to be repulsed by it, so if you disagree with my opinion in my opinion you are a disgusting human being."

Thou doth protest too much

Especially when your opinion can be traced to a repressed Siscon Complex

Just a quick request to humanity in general: Can we please stop assuming that everyone who dislikes something secretely loves it? I find it annoying. I find it an infuriating way of people trying to end arguments. I know in some cases its true, some of the most violent homophobes are homosexuals in denial. Yet I think you will find that a lot, probably MOST homophobes are not homosexuals in denial. Much like a lot, quite probably most, people who are anti-racism are not massive racists.

The logic is just stupid.

So are straw man arguments

*sigh*

Scroll up on and read my large reply. I made multiple points, not all of which were based on the fact that I find the act utterly repulsive. Please would you stop using internet psychology to try and indicate I secretly want to fuck members of my family. I do not, I find the very thought to be repulsive.

You are disregarding my opinion because you are finding non-existent subtext within my post. I find this highly annoying.

At no point did I state that if you disagree with my opinion that you are a disgusting human being. Hell, I did not even equate incest with being a disgusting human being. Just a disgusting act, that disgusts me, an act that would make me think you were mentally ill. It does not make you a "Disgusting person".

Please would you avoid putting words in other peoples mouths. It does make discussion rather difficult.

Finally...

At what point did I begin protesting too much? Was it when I stated my honest opinion? An opinion which is shared by a lot of people? Christ.

*ponders*

Right. Because maggots and politics were not good enough logic, how about this?

I find the idea of being pissed on to be foul. At no point would I ever allow someone to piss on me. The idea is disgusting. It disgusts me. The very thought of it makes me want to vomit. I have an instant, visceral, gut reaction to the idea. Due to my stating this, do I secretly harbour thoughts of being pissed on? Do I desperately want to be urinated on?

Please, ser, accept that some people can hate something, genuinely find it disgusting, without wanting it. And, if you simply cannot, please do not further derail this thread with a reply. Your opinion is noted, yet of no value, so stop wasting my time by sharing it.

 

[Arakasi]

Oh god I hate the movie Gattica. Seriously, despise the thing. And I nothing Blade Runner, I nothing it so very hard.

I bet you enjoy Nickleback too.

Come on, you're talking about eugenics supporting eugenics, even if its passively. Please tell me you've read some scholarly articles about the socolgical impact of eugenics before you start talking about it.

I absolutely have not, and now I shall copy-paste my opinion of Gattica:

Gattica was fucking terrible.

It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve, and the main character was a selfish dick.

Now the kind of 'problems' raised by the movie are used by anti-intellectual, anti-genetic modification, anti-stem cell research nutjobs when it could do so much good.

 

[Entitled]

But is such disgust universal? If it was universal, then why does incest exist? Also, why are there people who are NOT disgusted by it?

Well, this one is easy: Because people do things which universally disgust other people all the time. One may as well ask why rape or genocide exist (Not that I am equating consensual incest with rape or genocide), people just do shit. Because they enjoy it, because they think that it is right, because morality is subjective (Will expand on that in the end of my post)

Except that we do have an answer for why rape and genocide are considered evil, that fit's into a larger frame of morality: Don't cause harm, do to others what you would want them to do with you, your rights expand as far as my body begins, etc.

Rape and genocide aren't even "revolting" in the same evolutionary psychological way that you try to attribute to incest to begin with. People are NOT hardwired to find rape and genocide revolting. The Old Testament urged israelites to rape the defeated enemy tribe's women, and to smash their infants on the rocks. This was the moral commandment of a Righteous God.

Our civilization didn't just arbitarily decide to change this because our guts suddenly started to tell us that it is revolting after all, but because now we understand more about empathy and about the paradigm of the Golden Rule, than we used to.

Yes, it is. I cannot remember the term, its been a while since I have studied psychology. To use an example, there is a reason why maggots make us feel ill. They are bad for us, they indicate rot, rotten food, things which can harm us. That is the logic I am using.

Evolutionary psychology is only an explanation for WHy we have certain urges, it doesn't imply anything about what we should do with them.

You might find maggots disgusting, then don't be around maggots. But that doesn't mean that you should exterminate maggots, or even tell other people that they ought to stay away from maggots because they also ought to find them disgusting. [/quote]

Your brain might be hardwired to find incest disturbing, but it's also hardwired to find people who are visibly different from your own monkey tribe revolting.

I disagree.

You are disagreeing with hard science. Look up "genetic attraction". It's a proven fact that we instinctively find faces genetically less similar to ours more repulsive.

For that matter, the famous "uncanny valley" effect also implies that human bodies that are subtly different from yours are repulsive. It's used to explain the fear of skin diseases and the fear of dead bodies (and zombies), but it can also jusify some racism, and even the disgust with old people.

Yes, with regards to interracial sex taboos and all of that shit. Yes, with regards to the very concept of race. No with regards to incest, bestiality and pedophilia.

Your failure to make a moral distinction between consensual and nonconsensual sex, is disturbing.

Power relationships in families are weird. Every-ones family is unique, yes, but in MOST cases, the parents have the most power and the children have the least. There is a distinct hierarchy present. The same reasoning as to why teachers should not fuck their students applies here. Power relationships, a position of care. It is frowned upon because people are on different levels, that the opportunity for exploitation is HUGE.

We created a specific cultural taboo for incest, and another one for student-teacher relatinships.

At the same time, the media glorifies inter-class romance, that also has a power difference, not to mention rescuer-romance, but even the Nightingale effect, or the Stockholm syndrome (Beauty and the Beast, anyone?) Celebrities having sex with groupies is also often glorified, there is a power difference there too.

Besides, taboos about incest already existed when society didn't give a flying fuck about consent, back when women were the legal property of their husbands, and raping a virgin meant that you then had to marry the damaged goods. People just figured out that there is a connection thabetween Incest and diseases, so they made a taboo against it. Now we have birth control, and we could even measure whether or no there is a genetic risk with any couple, so people are just making up new excuses about "power levels" that they don't really care about in other situations.

 

[FoolKiller]

This thread is going to end well.

-Is incest morally wrong?

Nope.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Agreed entirely.
Although I think that having a child from incest (however close the relation is that is considered statistically dangerous for the child) should certainly be banned.

There is a slight increase but the math is still fairly safe. It would take generations of repeated sibling relations to warrant significant risk.

 

[orangeban]

I don't care about if the incestuous couple makes kids or not, I'm concerned about the relationship dynamic in incestuous relationships. You'd have a tough time convincing me that a mother does not have a power over her son that makes any kind of relationship between them at best morally dubious.

Y'know how professors shouldn't have sex with pupils? It's like that, but X10.

Also, once you start building incestuous families, things get bad pretty quickly, all insular and stuff.

So yeah, I'd ban incest.

 

[Mr F.]

But is such disgust universal? If it was universal, then why does incest exist? Also, why are there people who are NOT disgusted by it?

*SNIP*

Except that we do have an answer for why rape and genocide are considered evil, that fit's into a larger frame of morality: Don't cause harm, do to others what you would want them to do with you, your rights expand as far as my body begins, etc.

Rape and genocide aren't even "revolting" in the same evolutionary psychological way that you try to attribute to incest to begin with. People are NOT hardwired to find rape and genocide revolting. The Old Testament urged israelites to rape the defeated enemy tribe's women, and to smash their infants on the rocks.

Our civilization didn't just arbitarily decide to change this because our guts suddenly started to tell us that it is revolting after all, but because now we understand more about empathy and about the paradigm of the Golden Rule, than we used to.

*SNIP*

Evolutionary psychology is only an explanation for WHy we have certain urges, it doesn't imply anything about what we should do with them.

You might find maggots disgusting, then don't be around maggots. But that doesn't mean that you should exterminate maggots, or even tell other people that they ought to stay away from maggots because they also ought to find them disgusting.

Your brain might be hardwired to find incest disturbing, but it's also hardwired to find people who are visibly different from your own monkey tribe revolting.

I disagree.

You are disagreeing with hard science. Look up "genetic attraction". It's a proven fact that we instinctively find faces genetically less similar to ours more repulsive.

For that matter, the famous "uncanny valley" effect also implies that human bodies that are subtly different from yours are repulsive. It's used to explain the fear of skin diseases and the fear of dead bodies (and zombies), but it can also jusify some racism, and even the disgust with old people.

Yes, with regards to interracial sex taboos and all of that shit. Yes, with regards to the very concept of race. No with regards to incest, bestiality and pedophilia.

Your failure to make a moral distinction between consensual and nonconsensual sex, is disturbing.

Oh, I did make a little point about consensual incest earlier on. As in, it is slightly different. But I still think it is foul.

Honestly? I find the idea of people trying to defend incest to be disturbing. I find the very idea disturbing and I genuinely think (Like the above examples) it is a sign that someone is mentally ill. Whilst acceptance for the mentally ill is a good thing, not something I would argue against, I would argue against legalising incest and making it socially acceptable.

Because it is one thing to try and help people who are ill, another to legislate in such a way that nobody bats an eyelid. Sorry of this sounds... Insulting? Insensitive?

I sorta made the point in my huge post. I think if you are fucking a family member something is wrong with you. I find it repulsive.

But this is just something that is going to have be accepted in further discussion. Sorry if you find my views disturbing. Let me state that the feeling is vaguely likewise.

Power relationships in families are weird. Every-ones family is unique, yes, but in MOST cases, the parents have the most power and the children have the least. There is a distinct hierarchy present. The same reasoning as to why teachers should not fuck their students applies here. Power relationships, a position of care. It is frowned upon because people are on different levels, that the opportunity for exploitation is HUGE.

We created a specific cultural taboo for incest, and another one for student-teacher relatinships.

At the same time, the media glorifies inter-class romance, that also has a power difference, not to mention rescuer-romance, but even the Nightingale effect, or the Stockholm syndrome (Beauty and the Beast, anyone?) Celebrities having sex with groupies is also often glorified, there is a power difference there too.

Besides, taboos about incest already existed when society didn't give a flying fuck about consent, back when women were the legal property of their husbands, and raping a virgin meant that you then had to marry the damaged goods. People just figured out that there is a connection between Incest and diseases, so they made a taboo against it. Now we have birth control, and we could even measure whether or no there is a genetic risk with any couple, so people are just making up new excuses about "power levels" that they don't really care about in other situations.

What if I stated that I do think the power levels argument holds water and I do care about it in other situations? My teacher-pupil argument is still a decent example of one of my main arguments against incest. Also, a few of your examples do not quite work. Someone falling in love with a rescuer (Someone who briefly held power over them and no longer does) is quite different from someone fucking a family member. You can just walk away from a rescuer. Bleh. Honestly, I find it hard to come up with a decent analogy for incest. It is rather unique.

Although I am beginning to consider that perhaps I should change a small aspect of my view. If I attempt to think about things from a more objective standpoint it is harder to argue that incest is morally wrong. Sex between consenting adults is not wrong.

Just... Revolting. And, in the case of a parent and child, I would still hold morally wrong (For the same arguments as the teacher-pupil relationship, duty of care etc etc etc).

It is wrong of me to apply the fact that I find an act repulsive to morality.

That said, I still hold that it is repulsive and a sign of mental illness.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I absolutely have not, and now I shall copy-paste my opinion of Gattica:

Gattica was fucking terrible.

It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve, and the main character was a selfish dick.

Now the kind of 'problems' raised by the movie are used by anti-intellectual, anti-genetic modification, anti-stem cell research nutjobs when it could do so much good.

They are also used by Transhumanists. Gattaca dealt with prenatal genetic modification and genetic profiling. Stem cells are post-natal and I didn't see anything anti-intellectual about it unless you think that there are a subset of people physically unable to comprehend astrophysics based on their genetics, which is untrue as we've discovered that genes aren't the be all and end all of your physical make up. Please look up the term Epigenetics.

*sigh*

Scroll up on and read my large reply. I made multiple points, not all of which were based on the fact that I find the act utterly repulsive. Please would you stop using internet psychology to try and indicate I secretly want to fuck members of my family. I do not, I find the very thought to be repulsive.

>I know I love my sisters more then I could (currently) love a partner

*Snigger*

You are disregarding my opinion because you are finding non-existent subtext within my post. I find this highly annoying.

W3LL, 1F MY OBS3RV4T1ONS 4R3 1NCORR3CT, B4S3D ON F4LICI3 WHY DO YOU F33L TH3 N33D TO CONV1NC3 M3 I'M WRONG?

At no point did I state that if you disagree with my opinion that you are a disgusting human being.

>- Should incest be legally banned? Yes.

No, you just think love should be legislated and your morality should be imposed on others.

Hell, I did not even equate incest with being a disgusting human being. Just a disgusting act, that disgusts me, an act that would make me think you were mentally ill. It does not make you a "Disgusting person".

Please, impose your opinion on the world, while the church imposes theres

Please would you avoid putting words in other peoples mouths. It does make discussion rather difficult.

I will if you will captain hyperbolic strawman argument

At what point did I begin protesting too much? Was it when I stated my honest opinion? An opinion which is shared by a lot of people? Christ.

It is in the opinion of a lot of people that sodomy is abhorrent too. Don't hide behind the collective, it just strengthens my argument about subtext.

You: *Huh, I love my sister and want to do things to her*
Society: "Doing your sister is wrong!"
You: *Oh damn, society thinks doing your sister is wrong, I must hide my secret shame, but how to do that?"
You: "Doing your sister is wrong!"

*ponders*

Right. Because maggots and politics were not good enough logic, how about this?

>Equating maggots and politics to logic
I think we found where you went wrong

I find the idea of being pissed on to be foul. At no point would I ever allow someone to piss on me. The idea is disgusting. It disgusts me. The very thought of it makes me want to vomit. I have an instant, visceral, gut reaction to the idea. Due to my stating this, do I secretly harbour thoughts of being pissed on? Do I desperately want to be urinated on?

We are comparing waste (which some consider sexy I should point out) to your kawaii-desu-ne Imouto-chan. Either you are being facetious or its telling the mental lengths you have gone to to prevent yourself from ravishing that.

Please, ser, accept that some people can hate something, genuinely find it disgusting, without wanting it.

I accept that some people genuinely find things disgusting. What I don't accept is people turning their preferences into legislation and imposing it on everyone

And, if you simply cannot, please do not further derail this thread with a reply. Your opinion is noted, yet of no value, so stop wasting my time by sharing it.

Is it in your power to give someone the last word? I can, but not to someone who imposes a law on an act that doesn't infringe on natural rights.