Incest

[Entitled]

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.

My real problem is not with your actual beliefs, but with your obvious lack of trying to connect your statement to any coherent belief system. Morality might be subjective to some extent, but moral systems can still be expected to have some sort of axiom behind them beyond "whatever I find wrong must be wrong".

Not to mention your usage of the concept of "mental illness", which also deviates from the medically accepted norm.

"people should be free to do whatever they want with their body" is a pretty commonly used liberal moral axiom.

"God created humans with an optimal natural order and we should try following that" is a conservative axiom.

When homophobes debate with gay rights people, I might find one side more repulsive than the other, and one more logically coherent than the other (and the two might not even be the same!), but at least they are both TRYING to be logically coherent and fit their views into a larger moral paradigm.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

This is my view as well. Though from a medical standpoint, I would recommend genetic counselling for heterosexual couples who might run the risk of being pregnant, just as it is recommended for couples who have a risk of passing on genetic conditions on their offspring.

Genetic counseling probably isn't a bad idea for anyone period, but unless there's a family history of genetic conditions popping up, the likelihood of it happening to children conceived through an incestuous relationship isn't tremendously higher than two random people hooking up. There's definitely a higher chance of it, but the actual change in risk tends to get blown out of proportion by the general populace.

 

[Arakasi]

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.

No, I'm not saying the movie is anti-intellectual, it very much isn't. I'm saying it's used by anti-intellectuals to justify backwards beliefs.

And I did a biology course. I know about genotypes and phenotypes.

 

[Mr F.]

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.

My real problem is not with your actual beliefs, but with your obvious lack of trying to connect your statement to any coherent belief system. Morality might be subjective to some extent, but moral systems can still be expected to have some sort of axiom behind them beyond "whatever I find wrong must be wrong".

Not to mention your usage of the concept of "mental illness", which also deviates from the medically accepted norm.

"people should be free to do whatever they want with their body" is a pretty commonly used liberal moral axiom.

"God created humans with an optimal natural order and we should try following that" is a conservative axiom.

When homophobes debate with gay rights people, I might find one side more repulsive than the other, and one more logically coherent than the other (and the two might not even be the same!), but at least they are both TRYING to be logically coherent and fit their views into a larger moral paradigm.

Did you finish reading my response?

I accepted that my view that it is morally wrong is not objective and therefore wrong. I have come to the conclusion that it is not morally wrong for two consenting adults to be in an incestuous relationship. However, I still hold that I find it utterly repulsive. Which does... Well, defuse the situation somewhat.

As for mental illness?

Well, this is where my view is again, slightly interesting and possibly offensive. In short: Accepting you have a problem is stage one on getting the problem sorted. Much like a pedophile needs help, I believe that someone who is partaking in incest needs help.

Before it is argued that I am stating it is morally wrong (I have accepted my view was incorrect), I do not believe that suicide is morally wrong. But I still believe someone who is suicidal needs help. So whilst incest might not be morally wrong, in some situations, I believe that those who would partake need help and are ill.

 

[The Ubermensch]

No, I'm not saying the movie is anti-intellectual, it very much isn't. I'm saying it's used by anti-intellectuals to justify backwards beliefs.

Well thats hardly a reason to hate the movie. I know goodwins law and all, but I think this usage is the reverse, we don't hate Nietzsche because the Nazis bastardised his concept of the Ubermensch to include Aryan features

And I did a biology course. I know about genotypes and phenotypes.

These are out dated, please look up the term Epigenetic.

Or hell, here's a good video

 

[Loop Stricken]

-Is incest morally wrong?
-In the case of no possible offspring?
-With offspring?

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

No.

Well, that was fun! Let's just forward this to the rest of the world and-- oh.

---
See, the problem is, people think incest and default to godless heathen low IQ degenerates who are so disgusting only their own kin will take them, and they just pump out unholy deformed mutant babbies.

Now I can't speak as to how people actually go about porking their family, but the children thing? Massively overblown.
When you consider that the average chance for two as-unrelated-as-it's-possible-to-be people having a child born with birth defects is 2%, and that incest between siblings (not even cousins) is only double that... it's not a massive problem.
Yes, successive instances of incest and inbreeding will increase the chance for latent heath problems to express themselves, but at that point the situation is probably more endemic of some sort of abuse.

Regardless!
What consenting people do with or to each other, I feel, shouldn't concern anybody else.

 

[austinmus4]

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.

Thus sums it up nicely. Although I do think that the couple, in the case of pregnancy, should think about the possibility of the child being born with any genetic problems and possible social side effects. So having a bit of foresight.

 

[Smeatza]

I wonder if people in this thread are taking into account the psychological aspects.

Incest was certainly a factor that encouraged and enabled sexual depravity in the West family.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West )

Have the psychological effects of incest ever been researched or documented?

 

[John Mcgregor]

incest doesnt bother me i guess since its their choice.

 

[Arakasi]

No, I'm not saying the movie is anti-intellectual, it very much isn't. I'm saying it's used by anti-intellectuals to justify backwards beliefs.

Well thats hardly a reason to hate the movie. I know goodwins law and all, but I think this usage is the reverse, we don't hate Nietzsche because the Nazis bastardised his concept of the Ubermensch to include Aryan features

Valid point, it still grates me though. That and the other things I mentioned.

And I did a biology course. I know about genotypes and phenotypes.

These are out dated, please look up the term Epigenetic.

Or hell, here's a good video

That was quite interesting, I had heard of something similar before but it wasn't spelled out in such a manner. Though I'm still not quite sure how it tied in to the discussion.

 

[Entitled]

I wonder if people in this thread are taking into account the psychological aspects.

Incest was certainly a factor that encouraged and enabled sexual depravity in the West family.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West )

Have the psychological effects of incest ever been researched or documented?

The problem with investigating what the psychological effects of defying a common moral taboo are, is that it inevitably ends up mixing up cause with effect.

Maybe incest "enabled" sexual depravity in the West family. Or maybe incest was an example of sexual depravity being enabled in the West family.

A few decades or centuries ago, in a world where homosexuality is illegal, a disproportional amount of gays that you would have heard about, would have been rapists. Not because there was any inherent connection between homosexuality and rape, but because smart, educated gays with self-control would have either kept their pants on, or found a discreet partner, while impulsive, uneducated, irresponsible ones would have gotten caught with their pants down. That's where the old "gays are pedophiles" stereotype originates from).

Maybe if incest would be culturally accepted, there wouldn't be any difference seen between two siblings ending up together, and two childhood friends ending up together, therefore we would be more likely to find successful, respectable, balanced people doing it. But as long as it's both illegal and shunned, it's inevitable that our sample of incestous relationships is leaning towards the kind of people who are already likely to break the law and defy social norms.

 

[The Ubermensch]

Before it is argued that I am stating it is morally wrong (I have accepted my view was incorrect), I do not believe that suicide is morally wrong. But I still believe someone who is suicidal needs help. So whilst incest might not be morally wrong, in some situations, I believe that those who would partake need help and are ill.

You know what they used to do to homosexuals in England? You could go to prison or your could be chemically castrated.

Because of this legislation the greatest man in all of everything, Alan Turing, took his own life. The man who created a device that cracked the enigma code and is responsible for saving the world was forced to take drugs that messed him up to the point where he killed himself because his government thought that having sodomy with another consenting man was abhorrent and thought that they could "Fix" him.

I agree with you, there are some psychological factors, but you can't blanket every single case as being wrong. If they are consenting adults who cares. It's not like they're marching down the street proclaiming their love in multicoloured attire; which I guess is part of the reason its so easy to attack them.

You can't possibly know what's going on in everyone's mind when you won't even admit what's going on in yours

Valid point, it still grates me though. That and the other things I mentioned.

>anti-intellectual
Nietzsche
>anti-genetic modification
Nietzsche and Prenatal Genetic Modification
>anti-stem cell
Used by nut jobs, yes, the movie itself isn't against that. Its against Prenatal Genmods

So these are gone

>It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve
Slavery, Racism, Famine, Social Inequality
History is filled with issues that can be solved with two seconds of logic, the reason that we don't use it is because if we did those with power would lose some if not all their power.
That's why the south fought against the north, thats why 92% of america's GDP goes to 5% of Americans

I will admit that the fact that we don't use this logic breaks my suspension of disbelief with reality too, but the movie was very much in keeping with the matrix we inhabit.

>and the main character was a selfish dick.
Gonna have to explain that one too me, seemed like he was just doing what he had to do in order to achieve his goals. He didn't do anything to anyone with out their consent, and the injustice inflicted on him were far worse than anything he did to anyone else.

That was quite interesting, I had heard of something similar before but it wasn't spelled out in such a manner. Though I'm still not quite sure how it tied in to the discussion.

Well, you and the guy you quoted were in favour of selecting genes, I've just proved that's futile with that video. The context in which you said it would be used was fair enough, but once the technology is available you can bet people will start using it in general. On top of the fact that prenatal genetic manipulation leaves those living behind, having the burden of being perfect is something we should not give to our children. Eugenics is wrong, however if it can be done postnatally then its fine, hence "I most certainly am asking for this".

You also said that you knew about genotypes and phenotypes, thinkning that's what I was talking about. "Ignorance isn't the enemy of knowledge, the illusion of knowledge is"

The more you know!

 

[HoneyVision]

I think that something like incest is just so culturally engrained, and so deeply embedded in our society as being wrong, that I don't think it will see the light of day anytime soon. And to be honest, some things are better left alone. There's too much risk with incest.
I find that a lot of people want to stretch and break rules just for the sake of having no rules, not because it will actually produce anything useful. I think that the reasons keeping incest socially repulsive are called for.

 

[The Heik]

For a starting definition so there's no confusion

Definition of incest
noun
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
Origin:
Middle English: from Latin incestus, incestum 'unchastity, incest', from in- 'not' + castus 'chaste'

It's from the Oxford Dictionary.

For discussion:

-Is incest morally wrong?
-In the case of no possible offspring?
-With offspring?

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

Given the topic, I think this should be an interesting supplement


In answer to your questions though (from my perspective at least)

Morally wrong?

No

In case of offspring?

Only if it's with direct family ie brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, and that's only due to the the higher likelihood of genetic defects coming to the fore, and even then it's still up for debate.

Legally banned?

Hell no. Sex between two consenting adults is my only criterion for coital circumstances.

Disgust me?

Well let me put it this way: a few years back i was at a summer sophia symposium, I found out that two of my friends there were dating and hooking up despite being related to each other, specifically second cousins i think. My reaction to discovering that? I shrugged my shoulders and went back to my morning flapjacks.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Two consenting adults? No problem.

However, adult/child is wrong because it's an adult having sex with a child. I think that's (one of) the original reasons it's considered bad - adult/child gets rapey pretty much immediately.

For this reason, I'm generally more okay with sibling incest than anything between parent/child. Even between consenting adults, the parent/child seems ickier. Probably just my bias, but there you have it.

Then again, this whole thread is about personal bias (of one sort or other), so I'm not really alone.

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

I have no moral problem with incest itself. Whatever certain family members want to do, I've got no problem as long as it's consensual. What I do have a problem with is inbreeding: obviously, it presents real genetic problems and that's what I think shouldn't be allowed. The rates of mental illness are high and the national IQ is low, and we don't need to exacerbate that problem.
I'm not saying incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children, all I'm saying is that they should have to adopt.

 

[Mr F.]

Before it is argued that I am stating it is morally wrong (I have accepted my view was incorrect), I do not believe that suicide is morally wrong. But I still believe someone who is suicidal needs help. So whilst incest might not be morally wrong, in some situations, I believe that those who would partake need help and are ill.

You know what they used to do to homosexuals in England? You could go to prison or your could be chemically castrated.

Yes, I do. Of course I do. I am a bisexual living in England and I have studied history. I know what happened to Turing, I know he was pumped full of hormones. I also know that psychiatry has moved on since then, that we have stopped lobotomising people and that, in general, things are pretty decent within mental health care in this country. Could be better, could be worse.

*SNIP*

I agree with you, there are some psychological factors, but you can't blanket every single case as being wrong.

You know, this would be easier if you actually started properly reading what I am writing! I accepted it is not immoral, however I will not move from me thinking that it is a sign of mental illness. If I am proven wrong in the fullness of time, fine and dandy. Thats life. However, I do find fucking a family member abhorrent. I find it revolting. And I believe that someone who is making the choice to fuck family members needs their head examined. I do not like you trying to argue that this situation is the same as homosexuality. The LGBTQ is not the LGBTQI. Sorry.

If they are consenting adults who cares.

Again, I stated that I believe it is not immoral, but that I think it is a sign of being mentally ill. A quick search online only gives me cases of people who were abused in childhood (Although a clear link is there between victims of childhood sexual abuse and mental illness), it is rather hard to do studies on people who admit to being in incestuous relationships.

It's not like they're marching down the street proclaiming their love in multicoloured attire; which I guess is part of the reason its so easy to attack them.

You can't possibly know what's going on in everyone's mind when you won't even admit what's going on in yours

*SNIP*

Please. Stop. For christs sake. I did not respond to your last post. It seems like your attempts to get the last word go so far as you having to have the last word twice (Thus continuing this circular bullshit.) This community has gone downhill since you are no longer able to label a troll a troll (that being a non-sequitur and not in reference to you, my good man).

If you wish to have a discussion, let us have a discussion.

But please, stop with your attempts to annoy me.