Incest

[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?

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I say go for it.

There's really no good reason why the sex and relationships should be illegal.

Children is another story. I think the risks would need to be better weighed and more tests and studies performed before that was fully legalized.

And no, it doesn't disgust me. I won't go in to it too far, but let's just say I wish a few of my family members felt the same way I do.......

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

George R.R. Martin believes that incest causes wars.

(No I don't mean it)

Other than that I have nothing else to offer to this thread

 

[TallanKhan]

I have to admit it isn't an issue i have spent a great deal of time considering but i would have to say i don't think there is a logically justifiable case that incest is morally wrong in itself. I will qualify that by saying the actual idea makes me feel unsettled, but the things that disturb us aren't always logical.
I do however believe strongly that incestuos conception is morally wrong (as would be any kind of conception where you knowingly take that kind of risk with a potential childs health).

 

[DeltaEdge]

Pretty much anything I want to say has been covered, albeit scattered among several posts, so I will summarize my feelings on the matter.

I am completely okay with other people engaging in incest(Although I wouldn't engage in it personally). It should definitely be legal. As for children, due to the fact that I don't want to spend the next day researching this, I will just say this. Some people mentioned some kind of reproductive counselling, and I think that they should do that, and if there is sufficient evidence to show that the likely-hood of birth defects are high, then they should not be allowed to have the child. I feel that this should be applicable to any couple that yields such as result after testing as well. But if there is no such way of accurately testing people, and determining how high the risk for defects are, then I guess that option is out the window.

Do I personally find it disgusting? Well, parent and child incest I do find to be quite gross, but I don't really find incest among siblings to be particularly gross, unless it is male homosexual sex, which I find gross regardless of how they are related. Also notable, I don't really consider having sex with your cousin to be incest, just your direct siblings from the same parent.

But yeah, so basically, I am completely fine with it, and am fine with children as the result of an incestuous relationship, provided that the risk for birth defects is shown to be no higher than a normal couple's.

Spoiler: Captcha: face the music

 

[Iron Lightning]

I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?

I'm sorry but I just have to ask. What the hell is self marriage? What would be the point of marrying yourself? What's the difference between an unmarried person and a self-married person?

More on topic: The belief that incest is unethical because of the increased risk of genetic deformities manifesting is tantamount to a belief in the goodness of eugenics.

It's illogical to condemn incest while not simultaneously condemning couple who suffer from genetic deformities.

Either incest is ethical or eugenics is ethical and I hope that no one here is sophomoric enough to think that eugenics is ethical.

 

[Frankster]

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?

Good question. Ill need to be more informed on the subject and the nature of hereditary illness in question before i can answer it though.
The answer might potentially mean i support a limited form of eugenics which would be horrible at first glance but then again, if im against healthy people having too many kids if they can't handle them, i suppose this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I don't feel like I'm in the position to say. I have no siblings, am not particularly close with my family, and my mother is conventionally unattractive so I don't know if I find her unattractive because she IS or because she's my mother.

I guess it's not my business, but I'm not really a good judge over how "sick" or "wrong" it supposedly is.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Don't really care about it one way or the other.
My gut reaction to the idea is one of disgust, because I've grown up with perception that it's one of the worst things you could do. Rednecks with oddities being the result of said relationships, genetic defects galore, two depraved individuals.

Though when I apply some logic to it, eh.
Defects happen regardless of who it is. Miscarriages happen regardless of who it is.
I'm certain that there's more disgusting acts that humanity has partaken in, of a non-sexual fashion.

When there's two consenting adults, how can you say that it's (the act) wrong?
If anything, the reaction to it is wrong and the aftermath (pregnancy) could also be wrong.
So I suppose I'm someone that's neutral to it, but wouldn't/couldn't do it myself.

 

[Arakasi]

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged lately (I pause here to hear you groan) and I'm starting to think that the status quo is hating on the, what 5%, while wider philosophical considerations are shunned.

>Atlas Shrugged
Stopped reading there, Invalidates all your arguments

Kidding, Okay, but you need to follow that up by reading Marx and Orwell. Marx is actually very good at describing the difference between Libertarianism (which he claims is what capitalism is sold as) and working Capitalism.
Ayn Rand, if you haven't noticed, was very apt to dehumanise people.

Actually, I did buy 1984 along with Atlas Shrugged. But I'll probably read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris next, then Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche. I also fail to see how Ayn dehumanises people, all I've seen is the very opposite.

I agree with this, but the issue that we have is that I know it won't stop there.

How do you know? And where will it go? And will it matter if it goes there?

In that order
-Based on projections made on personal observations and correlations in human behaviour
-Full blown inappropriately regulated Eugenics
-In my opinion yes

I highly doubt, with all the speculative fiction, and bioethcis and shit like that, that we'll ever come to something like that. But I guess only time will tell.

Again, it is very possible that it wouldn't be homogenised, and that's what testing is for. Lots and lots of testing. Also ensuring that we have the science of epigentics accounted for as best as possible.

The testing screens for Issues, not homogenisation, example. you have four couples and 16 genes, they each have two kids. the best Gene is selected from each parent

Oh, I get that, I'm saying that in the future when we do have the technology (just as we'd have the tech for higher level eugenics).

AB + CD = AC + AC
EF + GH = FG + FG
IJ + KL = JL + JL
MN + OP = NO + NO

Congratulations, you've just halved your genetic diversity!

they then mate and you do the same again

AC + FG = FC + FC
JL + NO = NL + NL
FG + JL = FG + FG
NO + AG = AO + AO

Okay, you haven't quite halved it this time, but the pools gettings shallower

See where I'm going with this? Yeah the examples not perfect but it illustrates my point. You can try and regulate this but it would be really difficult to do

I'd imagine it wouldn't really matter. If we can synthetically create DNA for the eugenics there would be no problems with genetic diversity, as any problems that would be caused via two people mating 1. Generally arises from those killer ressessives I mentioned earlier and 2. Could be replaced by the very same process that caused them to be homogeneous in the first place.

No, but a very high burden of performance will be placed on the first generation of "Goopers"

Not if you make it double blind.

*First production models of Goopers

Alright, what do you mean by high burden of performance? If you mean there'll be big things expected of them and such and that'll skew the results, a double blind study would eliminate that.

I don't agree. Eugenics is not inherently wrong. It could be applied wrong, but there are almost certainly ways it could work.

Yeah, I doubt it though

We'll see I guess. I think that most of any potential problems that could arise from it come from those rejecting it without knowing what they are talking about, just like stem cell research and GM foods.

I'm sure there is, I'm just a really cynical person. Haven't you noticed?

You're cynical? I'm cynical. I just don't like to speak in absolutes and rule out potential solutions based upon potential problems.

Like it or not, you need someone to call out the potential problems

Oh of course, I'm not saying not to do that, I'm just saying not to throw out the whole idea due to those potential problems.

Wait, what?
I am not saying that I don't want to know, I am saying that others don't and they're the danger, especially as they are much more likely to be able to be indoctrinated with false information.

Of course I don't take arguments souly from authority. I attempt to judge all arguments without prejudice, and weigh them by merit.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of
the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity
and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.
For he is truly his brother's keeper... and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger
those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I
am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

Some people will away's need a shepherd, unfortunately false ones exist.

Thanks to Ayn Rand that has become one of my more despised Bible passages. I still maintain that so long as you do no harm to others, selfishness is just. More harm seems to come from people calling others selfish, then demanding what they do not deserve.

Finally, yes, some people will always need a shepard. It is a shame really, I think the school system carries a significant amount of the blame. That is one area where I will admit that Ayn Rand is naive, she puts too much faith in human beings.