Incest

[Charli]

This topics been on here before, my answer is the same. Children involved, bad.

There is a good reason so many 'noble' and Royal families carried weak genetics and defects. All that in-breeding even between COUSINS let alone brothers and sisters, or whatever carried a pattern of troubles. Not always, but more frequently than those who reproduce outside of their families.


Otherwise do whatever the hell you want. Adults can make their own decisions regarding sexual preferences.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

Is incest morally wrong?
I don't believe in morality, so no.
Should incest be legally banned?
No, things that have little effect on others should not be legally banned. Same with Marijauna, pretty much. The most that should be done is some kind of control of childbirth. And even then, I'm not sure the government would be the best regulator of that.
Does the act of incest disgust you?
Nope. It's sex like any other. And I have a cousin I would be on in a second if he were willing, so that would be quite hypocritical.

 

[Jamieson 90]

-Is incest morally wrong? Depends on who you're asking I suppose. As for my self I'm extremely open minded and liberal about things like this so I fall into the whatever floats your boat category, that is as long as no one is getting hurt anyway, made me think of Jamie and Circe Lannister and they seem happy enough.

-With offspring? Using the example of Jamie and Circe just look at Joffrey Lannister/Barathoen as an example of why you should not commit incest and have children, although without children and the problems that can cause it's not as bad.

Lastly I think in general incest between cousins and siblings is more accepted, and I wouldn't be that bothered by that, but trying to imagine incest between a child over 18 and parent/grandparent etc freaks even me out.

 

[Entitled]

Yes it is wrong, there is more to the issue than simply genetics, which is what most people seem to be focusing on. There is the issue of the family structure. In general family is supposed to be safe, nuturing, and free of ulterior motives in of itself.

And what's the reason why intimacy should be considered an "ulterior motive", as opposed to something that people do to each other out of affection?

You legalized incest and your basically saying it's okay for parents to do things like condition their children to be sex slaves, as long as they wait until the age of consent to actually have sex with them. Something which is going to be REALLY easy to do if your dealing with the parents being able to raise the child pretty much since birth.

Parents constantly fail at raising their children for a specific religion, ideology, career, or worldview. Forcing them to do a specific act against their innate will, would probably be even more improbable.

The "age of consent" is called that for a reason, by that age, people have enough agency to decide what they want. To entirely avoid this, a child would need to be raised so sheltered, and so strictly, that it would be child abuse even before anything sexual would happen.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Attempting to legislate incest seems like a waste of resources. It's just throwing time and money at a 'problem' the solution of which benefits no one. Yeah, it strikes most people as icky, but its fairly rare for two people to even want to do it and I can't think of a good reason to make it illegal, unless you want to legislate all the other things that can result in fucked up babies too.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

This is one of those situations in which the law doesn't really need to get involved. The Westermarck Effect or reverse imprinting tends to guarantee that one is not attracted to those they grew up with (related or otherwise).

The incidents of incest we do have tend to be from related people separated at infancy, and the rare case with mental disorders or brain injuries (but in those cases, the incest is incidental to the inhibition-removing disorder in question).

Sibling or parent-child incest is illegal in in many countries, including all the US. But we do like to pass laws to inhibit sexual deviation just in case. And because birth defects in cousin-incest broods become more likely only after many generations of the same families interbreeding, cousin relationships hardly count as incest (and are legal most places).

Interestingly, only in the late 20th century was a relationship in-law regarded differently from a relationship by blood. So your sister-in-law couldn't marry your brother (nor you to your step-brother), but uncle-neice weddings were acceptable and common.

Myself, I was a neglected only-child. I am an incest fetishist. However my indulgences don't go beyond fantasies for mostly obvious reasons.

238U

 

[Entitled]

Attempting to legislate incest seems like a waste of resources. It's just throwing time and money at a 'problem' the solution of which benefits no one. Yeah, it strikes most people as icky, but its fairly rare for two people to even want to do it and I can't think of a good reason to make it illegal, unless you want to legislate all the other things that can result in fucked up babies too.

Incest already *is* illegal.

 

[Lawnmooer]

Is incest morally wrong?

Not really, in the animal kingdom incest happens all the time. Heck we humans force animals into incest in order to control various genes or to observe genetic anomalies (Not ones caused by inbreeding, things like hereditary diseases)

I would just like to point out that what animals are willing to do isn't a good moral compass (EX: Dolphins commit rape and kill for fun). Especially for something like incest, where potential issues are long-term and genetic, something animals don't understand beyond perhaps an instinctual level.

Though animals are a good representation of the risk, since they'll commit incest fairly frequently, yet they still maintain healthy individuals and have been reproducing for hundreds and thousands of years.

Heck laboratory mice have been bred via incest since the early 20th century and they still prove to be identical to the first one of it's type.

If nearly 100 years of incest hasn't caused the entire species to develop horrendous defects, I doubt that the odd couple having children incestually will have dramatic effects (Especially when compared to the multitude of other conditions that can be brought on via 2 non-related people having children if they just happen to both be high risk)

The issue of morality would come from whether you get a majority of your morals from society (Which would make the act of incest morally wrong as it's taboo and also provides some risk of genetic mutation) or if you develop your morality instictually (Usually via common sense stuff such as; Harming others is wrong) society seems to like looking down on a great many things that shouldn't be a problem to many people.

 

[Smeatza]

That is interesting but I was thinking more in a general sense than in regards to sexual deviation.

For example. A child born of an incestuous relationship is significantly more likely to have genetic defects.
And if a family accepting incestuous relationships as normal, increases the likelyhood of subsequent generations having incestuous relationships (not saying it does just my example), would that not make the chance of an incestuous pregnancy (accidental or otherwise) happening much higher?
If it was culturally accepted en masse wouldn't the amount of babies with defects being born rise significantly?

Oh, so when you said "the psychological aspects of incest", you meant "the psychological aspects of inbreeding"?

Well, first of all, the former desn't necessarily assume the latter. It's not difficult to imagine a society where sex or even long term relationships between siblings are accepted, but inbreeding is heavily discouraged. Birth control technology is already pretty safe, especially the long term solutions that would work for spouses.

Second, there is the Westermark effect. Right now, incest is discouraged by both the effect and by taboos, while encouraged by the Genetic Attraction effect, and by the emotional effect of long term intimate relationships. These four add up to incest being extremely rare. So even if we would take out the taboos, probably the Westermark effect would be strong enough that incest would be somehow more common than now, but not as significantly common as natural attraction between people close to each other would imply.

Third, I think you are misunderstanding how genetic defects from inbreeding work. Real life is not like Game of Thrones, where every time an inbred baby is born, the gods toss up a coin and it has a 50% chance of growing up batshit crazy.
Inbreeding can trigger a number of pre-existing hereditary disease genes that the two relatives shared. If they share such genes, their child is extremely likely to be born with that disease (e.g.: Huntington, Hemophilia, etc), and if they don't then their potential children are safe. These genes can be tested in advance nowadays.

But it's not as simple as children resulting from incest getting some sort of vaguely defined "negative psychological effect".

Again, I was thinking more along the lines of the psychological effects of growing up in an incest friendly family/culture. But your posts have been interesting nonetheless.

And don't many inbred animals tend to have a higher infant mortality rate, lower growth size and immune function? Is this not the same for humans? I assumed there was more to it than the allele stuff.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I'm skeptical of people that talk about "genetic attraction" (especially when used as a justification for incest) in how humans are apparently hardwired to go after partners that looks similar to them...

Keep in mind that our brains are informed by our cohabitants regardless of blood-relations (specifically to mate with those who look like them, but not those particular specimens). Our mating desires can also be informed by other factors. And regardless, statistical tendencies found in studies of large groups tend to say very little about the individual e.g. just because women tend to be smaller and less muscular than men doesn't inform whether a specific woman will be a good marine.

I'm not comparing incest to homosexuality, rape fantasies, or urolagnia. Going by society?s definition, it seems that anything other than heterosexual sex is considered "deviant".

I would, in that none of these predilections should inform the law. Homosexuality, rape fantasies (played out between consenting adults), scat play, whatever, shouldn't be criminalized because its presence offends some people. Some kinds of sex play are risky, but so is jumping out of an airplane with a questionably-packed parachute, and that's plenty legal.

238U

 

[Rinshan Kaihou]

Do I think it's wrong?

Nope.

Should it be banned?

Of course not.

Does it disgust me?

As long as it's consensual, not really. Seriously. It's sex. As long as a child doesn't result, mainly for the welfare of said offspring, it doesn't bother me at all really. As long as it's consensual anyway. Do whatever makes you happy as long as nobody is being hurt by it.

 

[penguindude42]

It's perfectly fine if it's not hetero.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Attempting to legislate incest seems like a waste of resources. It's just throwing time and money at a 'problem' the solution of which benefits no one. Yeah, it strikes most people as icky, but its fairly rare for two people to even want to do it and I can't think of a good reason to make it illegal, unless you want to legislate all the other things that can result in fucked up babies too.

Incest already *is* illegal.

I know. I'm saying that it's a waste of effort to keep it so because enforcing those laws doesn't actually benefit anyone or produce any kind of revenue stream. Any legal attention devoted to dealing with incest is equivalent to burning money.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Please don't let this turn into the new trend for threads Please don't let this turn into the new trend for threads Please don't let this turn into the new trend for threads.

My thoughts exactly.

OP: Yes, it is morally wrong, even without offspring. Yes incest should be outlawed and yes I find it disgusting espicially if its a granparent having sex with their grandson or granddaughter.

 

[Vegosiux]

OP: Yes, it is morally wrong, even without offspring. Yes incest should be outlawed and yes I find it disgusting espicially if its a granparent having sex with their grandson or granddaughter.

Well, it seems to me that "old people and sex, especially sex with young people" translates into "ewwwwww" in the minds of most people anyway, whether the couple in question is related or not...

 

[HalfTangible]

Is incest morally wrong?

Not really, in the animal kingdom incest happens all the time. Heck we humans force animals into incest in order to control various genes or to observe genetic anomalies (Not ones caused by inbreeding, things like hereditary diseases)

I would just like to point out that what animals are willing to do isn't a good moral compass (EX: Dolphins commit rape and kill for fun). Especially for something like incest, where potential issues are long-term and genetic, something animals don't understand beyond perhaps an instinctual level.

Though animals are a good representation of the risk, since they'll commit incest fairly frequently, yet they still maintain healthy individuals and have been reproducing for hundreds and thousands of years.

We also have several examples of human bloodlines (particularly royal bloodlines) going 'thin' in later generations due to incest, leading to insanity and genetic defects. Granted, it likely won't be a problem until after a few generations, but frankly humanity's got very narrow genetic variance to begin with.

Heck laboratory mice have been bred via incest since the early 20th century and they still prove to be identical to the first one of it's type.

If nearly 100 years of incest hasn't caused the entire species to develop horrendous defects, I doubt that the odd couple having children incestually will have dramatic effects (Especially when compared to the multitude of other conditions that can be brought on via 2 non-related people having children if they just happen to both be high risk)

1) I don't want to be like a lab mouse and I don't know a single human being that does. =P Even the ones who go through medical experiments at least want to get paid.

2) The human species is already very genetically similar. I can't find exact data on mouse genetics but I doubt that a species that has been reproducing like rodents (for obvious reasons) for millenia if not longer is going to have the same sort of bottleneck humans have had.

3) The species is not the only consideration to be made here. You can asses some risk factors but ultimately you can't make an infant one way or the other without modifying genetics (which is a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't get into here, or the thread may derail)

The issue of morality would come from whether you get a majority of your morals from society (Which would make the act of incest morally wrong as it's taboo and also provides some risk of genetic mutation) or if you develop your morality instictually (Usually via common sense stuff such as; Harming others is wrong) society seems to like looking down on a great many things that shouldn't be a problem to many people.

So the only reason I would find incest creepy would be if i was a mindless socialite and don't develop morals on my own? Nice to know.

... Okay, that was harsh and a little stupid of me. Look, I agree society places too many tabboos on things that don't make sense, but that doesn't mean everything society tells us is wrong isn't.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

Incest should be illegal because it's detrimental to the human race. We don't need negative and recessive genes debilitating future generations.

 

[Frankster]

Im not sure about this.

On one side id usually say what goes on between 2 ppl in the bedroom is none of my business, but inbreeding leads to genetic problems so it isnt just the 2 ppl that are concerned, its their offspring and what effect it would have on the wider society.

And that...is more my business. It already sickens me when i see people having way more kids then they can handle, or parents that have kids for silly resons just as tax benefits or to entrap a husband (these cases sadly do exist) so the whole sister and bro boinking then having kids really does kinda irk me.

So guess i don't find it morally wrong for a sister and brother to hook up without having kids, but if they were then that would be crossing a line in my book. My 2 cents.

 

[Entitled]

Im not sure about this.

On one side id usually say what goes on between 2 ppl in the bedroom is none of my business, but inbreeding leads to genetic problems so it isnt just the 2 ppl that are concerned, its their offspring and what effect it would have on the wider society.

And that...is more my business. It already sickens me when i see people having way more kids then they can handle, or parents that have kids for silly resons just as tax benefits or to entrap a husband (these cases sadly do exist) so the whole sister and bro boinking then having kids really does kinda irk me.

So guess i don't find it morally wrong for a sister and brother to hook up without having kids, but if they were then that would be crossing a line in my book. My 2 cents.

Would it also cross the line for you if a person with a hereditary genetic illnes would have children with someone that they are not not related to?