Poll: Is incest wrong if it's consensual?

[Candidus]

Unpleasant? Yes.

Morally wrong? Not really. Sex is just sex, and who people have sex with is none of your business provided all parties are consenting.

Now, believing you have a right to bandy up with a bunch of other people and create public policy prohibiting stuff that affects you personally in NO WAY whatsoever? That's about the most disgusting thing I can imagine.

Incest only gets morally complex when a child is conceived. You have to bet that eventually people are going to find out your child's heritage, which could be difficult depending on when it happens and just how far the word travels.

 

[6_Qubed]

Incest which results in offspring magnifies the recessive flaws in a given genepool, thus weakening the pool subjectively and the species objectively. For this reason, it is wrong.

 

[DoubleTime]

Putting aside the potential for horrible side effects of offspring, I don't think an incestuous relationship can be 100% consensual.

It is generally considered morally wrong, or at least a seriously dangerous grey area, for two individuals with one in a position of power over the other to have a relationship. This goes for psychologists/patients, teachers/students, bosses/employees, and I believe it would extend to parents/children and even between siblings since there is always an order of authority that comes with age.

I don't think I have to explain why, but in short it's because the position of authority means there's too much potential for a "consensual" relationship to be the person in the position of lower power simply obeying the person in the position of higher power, or being convinced that it's what they want when it's just abuse from higher up.

The whole thing is ridiculously murky, and the laws and social mores in this case are there to protect the individual who is most in danger of being abused just as with other higher power/lower power relationships.

 

[Hurray Forums]

The reason it is banned is not because there is influence within the relation, it is because there is influence outside the relation, which will still be there even if the relation were to break up.
The problem with that is that often when it is abused, and because the victim will have to live with the perpetrator afterwards they'll lie about their consent, or have convinced themselves already they are consenting.

Why are you bringing up consent issues when the topic specifically mentions that this topic applies to consensual instances only? Obviously nonconsensual or coerced incest is bad, but the "badness" has nothing to do with it being incest. There are already rules against those types of relationships. As for the rest having to deal with people after breaking up with them is a fact of life for most relationships. Dating someone you go to school with, roommates, a coworker, whatever. Relationships are risky and can end badly, this isn't news to anyone, it's not unique to incest, it's not relevant, it's not a reason to ban it. People are generally free to make potentially bad decisions if it isn't going to hurt anyone else.

I'm not entirely sure though what your point is about legislation not preventing all perpetrators. Has it ever, for any crime?

The point is making incest illegal doesn't stop abusive relationships between family members. Obviously because they're still happening. To bring up the gun example again banning guns doesn't stop people from murdering other people with guns because the kind of person who would murder someone with a gun doesn't care if what he does is illegal or not. Abusive relationships are already illegal/highly frowned upon depending on severity, an incest taboo/ban isn't really going to help with stopping abusive relationships. If they're already doing something despite it being wrong making it "double wrong" isn't going to matter.

The main difference between my examples and yours is that mine are banned because the the negative chances far outweigh the positive sides.

Good luck proving that. Due to it being, you know, illegal, it's pretty much impossible to get unbiased statistics on incest. The only instances that get reported or any sort of media attention are the ones where it goes wrong/was never consensual to begin with. Finally, people are free to make whatever stupid decisions they want if it won't hurt other people. It's perfectly legal to juggle chainsaws despite it being VERY likely to end badly. Even if you could prove that incestous relationships were more likely to end badly it wouldn't mean anything.

 

[Thaius]

Well in a society such as the one in which we live, where post-modernism is the predominant philosophy and morality is an entirely subjective concept, there is no reason for anything to be immoral, unless perhaps it harms someone else. I think that's crap, but moral subjectivity is a very popular way of looking at the world right now, and you can't just take the parts you like.

On the other hand, if you have a belief system that provides a basis for an objective, absolute system of morality (read: God), then you have a system laid out for you. And I think in most of those cases, incest is wrong on a basic level no matter what the circumstance.

That would be a pretty bold claim for someone who bases their belief system on a holy text that contains incest every other chapter. The lineaologies are full of them. Heck, they even appear in the New Testament.

To read the Bible and assume that everything in it is a model for how we should live is, to put it bluntly, indicative of a terrible understanding of storytelling. It's like claiming that Star Wars condones killing children because Anakin did it; bad things happen, people do messed up things, and they face the consequences. That's how it works. But it does not mean that those actions are okay, especially if it's outright condemned by the story. Of course there's incest in the Bible, especially before God gave Moses the first real moral code on the subject. Now find me a place where the Bible points to it and says it's okay, and you might actually have something worth consideration.

Beyond that, however, I find it interesting that you assumed my Christianity. My point was simply about theistic religion as a whole, perhaps narrowed down to monotheism, but you proceeded to try and argue against Christianity specifically. Make of that what you will.

First paragraph: I am a Roman Catholic who went to a Catholic school, so yeah, I've studied the bible at length. As fiercely as I agree with you, many branches of Evangelical Christianity interpret the bible as "literal" -- God literally created the earth in a week. Adam and Eve literally were the first two members of the human race when the earth was created 7,000 years ago. It is the literalists that deny these things (incest) in the bible that baffle me.

You did pose God as an example, which is why I spoke about Christianity/Judaism. If you said Allah, I might have started to talk about Islam, although my knowledge about the qua'ran is far less than the bible. If you said Gods, I probably would have said nothing but thought about Hindi or Paganism.

When you say "God", I think it's virtually a given that people will assume either the Christian or Jewish God. Other monotheistic religions, for the most part, have their own name for their deity.

Ah, that does make sense. I suppose had I not capitalized God's name it would have been a bit less specific. I am a Christian, but I intended to marginalize any sort of specific affiliation to make a general point, but I guess that didn't work.

I apologize if I was a bit intense; I'm used to responses more like those one would find in the Religion/Politics section of the forum, which are usually far more... militaristic might be the word. Aggressive, perhaps. I love The Escapist, but the point of most religion-centric posts on this site seems to be ridicule and insult more than actual discussion, so I made an incorrect assumption regarding your post as well, for which I apologize.

But yes, I agree. I'm not sure about Catholic culture on this subject, but Christians often tend to try and ignore the fact that sin exists rather than actually dealing with the subject. It's especially true in stories, where the very presence of sin in a story turns some Christians off to it despite that very same content, and far worse, having a prominent place in a Bible story. That annoys the crap out of me as well.

 

[Candidus]

You're not supposed to kill.

You're not supposed to steal.

You're not supposed to screw your siblings.

A human being is a survival engine. Your nature compels you to take whatever course of action has the most survival value at any given time. If the alternative to stealing is starving, go ahead and steal. If the alternative to fighting and killing an aggressor is letting him stab you in the neck, go ahead and kill him. In either case, you have certainly done nothing morally wrong..

As for screwing your sibling, that's not a moral issue whatsoever except for where it results in conception of a child. If a couple of siblings decide to have a relationship with each other, and decide with good reason *not* to have a child (although they could adopt), go ahead and try to tell me at what stage you get the right to interfere?

As I said in the post above, there's nothing more disgusting than when people bandy up together with their wild rolling eyes and frothing mouths, and get meddling in the affairs of other people that in no way affect them. Awful.

I don't think an incestuous relationship can be 100% consensual.

That's absolutely nonsensical. Sibling relationships are as varied as friendships, or any other kind of relationship. It's absurd to say "there will always be [X] dynamic at work corrupting one or the others consent to the relationship".

I've got a 23 year old sister. I'm 26. If I tried to pull rank on her, I'd be laughed all the way to the doorstep, and the same is absolutely true in reverse. We respect each other, but we take no shit from each other. The idea that I could pressure her into anything is hilarious.

It actually bothers me that you seem to believe all sibling interaction comes out of one mold.

 

[Nieroshai]

There we go again equating sex with love. This disagreement has ended our discussion since this is the roadblock no one gives on. Love and happiness do not require sex.

Nice job ignoring the actual point of my post to instead latch on to one detail and then make a complete strawman out of it. Bonus points for the condescending dismissal. No, sex is not the same as love and love does not require sex but people in love tend to enjoy having sex. Taking away sex would have a negative impact on many people's love lives and happiness. Maybe not yours personally, but most.

Aaaand thank you for blaming me of something you could only say I did if you completely ignore my entire paragraph except for the last line.

 

[CLC Akira]

Yes. Ugh hell yes it's wrong and sickening.

And to a some of these replies...wow, just wow, REALLY? You'd REALLY have sex with someone in your IMMEDIATE FAMILY? People are stretching the idea of "tolerance" way, way to far.

Speaking of being sick...I need to leave these forums for a while.

I think you are missing the point of the conversation. Just because a lot of us say we don't see a problem with it doesn't mean we are going to do it. There are lots of stories of people who were put up for adoption and later in life met and fell in love with their biological sibling not knowing they were related.

 

[CLC Akira]

Funny, a few days ago, one of my second cousins was over, she's 21, and I haven't seen her since I was 3. She seemed to be flirting with me and I'd always catch her staring at me when I wasn't looking. She seemed to be giving off signs that she was attracted to me, and she kept making strange comments, I was a little weirded out.

More often than not a second cousin has no blood relation to you it is by marriage. So if she's hot, go for it.

 

[Gigano]

If it's:

a): Non-procreational, and
b): Takes place between consenting adults of legal age and full mental maturity,

then no, it isn't inherently harmful, and hence not something to be outlawed (laws against "Incestual procreation" should suffice, which is pretty much already only situation there's proof enough for a trial anyway).

For practical purposes, it does raise some issues, like a parent being able to "groom" its child into having such relationship when it comes of age. The risk here is probably clear and present enough that, akin to drunk driving, it can also warrant outlawing parent/offspring incest even between adults, at least when the offspring have been in the parent's custody as a child.

 

[jyork89]

That's awesome. Of course, apart from particular methods of surgical rearrangement no such thing exists.

I guess you've never heard of Implanon or Jadelle. Google it. But then again I guess it's not something they teach in school.

 

[airrazor7]

A human being is a survival engine. Your nature compels you to take whatever course of action has the most survival value at any given time. If the alternative to stealing is starving, go ahead and steal. If the alternative to fighting and killing an aggressor is letting him stab you in the neck, go ahead and kill him. In either case, you have certainly done nothing morally wrong..

Thanks for taking my words and putting them in a box. Hmm, context and hypotheticals , always interesting things to play with. Well here is the box my words were originally in. People, such as us, are more or less living decent lives. If we are starving, we have options and alternatives other than stealing. We have family, friends and organizations to help us. Besides, in a true survival setting the concept of stealing would not apply.
If someone drives up to Bi-Lo in their nice car, walk up to and break the front windows in their comfortable cloths, walk in, grab a loaf of bread and try to walk out, that is stealing. However, if the nuclear apocalypse just happened and they're dragging their broken body covered in the shredded rags that is left of their clothing to reach whatever food that maybe left in the collapsing Bi-Lo, I don't think anyone alive would care or accuse them of stealing.

If, IF we are ever assaulted, (which has actually happened to me) we have options. We can defend without killing or we can evade. Besides how often is someone after your neck with a knife? Yet, for you I guess I should have been specific. Thou shall not murder. Is that better? Fighting and, in the unfortunate circumstance of killing in self-defense is not an act of murder.

Heh, you speak of a survivalist attitude but I can promise you that if you ever have to survive in the conditions that you're day-dreaming of, smashing the windows of you local Bi-Lo will be the least of your worries.

As for screwing your sibling, that's not a moral issue whatsoever except for where it results in conception of a child. If a couple of siblings decide to have a relationship with each other, and decide with good reason *not* to have a child (although they could adopt), go ahead and try to tell me at what stage you get the right to interfere?

As I said in the post above, there's nothing more disgusting than when people bandy up together with their wild rolling eyes and frothing mouths, and get meddling in the affairs of other people that in no way affect them. Awful.

There is nothing more disgusting than a person with their rolling eyes, frothing mouths and verbal assaults, meddles in the affairs of other people that in no way affects them. Simply awful.

This is a thread where anyone can share their opinion as long as they do not attempt to attack others with their words. The thread creator asked for the opinions of anyone who wished to post. I posted my opinion and gave reasons for my opinion. I never commanded anyone to do as I say. I never said that my words are a law that must be followed. I never said I needed to stop or control someone's actions. So, please, tell me how I was "interfering." Please, enlighten me of my meddlesome methods. While you're trying to figure that one out, let me enlighten you.

You have quoted my post and while probably frothing at the mouth, have committed the very act you accuse me of. You targeted my post only to pick a fight, tried to skew my words and did not leave anything of intellectual or at least conversational worth towards the topic as the creator of this thread has asked. Well keep on roaring and banging your club as trolls do. I've no more words to waste on you.

 

[airrazor7]

I guess you've never heard of Implanon or Jadelle. Google it. But then again I guess it's not something they teach in school.

Your post piqued my curiosity so I did a little research. They do teach methods of birth control in school but I'm guessing that the more extreme methods may be avoided. I looked up Jadelle and found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norplant. I wouldn't wish the side effects of this drug on an enemy.

I will say that it sounds slightly better than some of the other methods that are actually legal in the U.S. The side effects of methods like Ortho Evra and Yaz can cause death. To be specific, they can cause heart attack, stroke or blood clots. You can live with blood clots but they have to be treated on a regular bases. Sometimes the treatments consist of taking a self given shot/needle (don't know the actual chemical used) in the stomach on a daily schedule.

 

[Rawne1980]

Maybe on the second or third viewing because why not? It's interesting.

And for someone essentially calling me humourless you seem to have missed the joke that is me replying to you in exactly the same manner as your offhanded lighthearted tone.
Exactly. What with being the same words.

This is me explaining the joke.

Banter my friend, banter.

If you read my comment in the "how do you avoid arguing on the internet" bit I love banter.

I apologise for the late reply it was nearly 2am when I posted my last comment and I needed sleep.

Occasionally you find that person you can have a bit of light banter with that doesn't take it to heart and starts throwing personal insults around. It passes the time and people don't get upset with banter so it's all good.

If I actually believed you to be a humourless person I would have taken a more serious note with my posts due to thinking sarcasm woud have gone straight over your head. Your funny bones are intact.

 

[Candidus]

So, please, tell me how I was "interfering." Please, enlighten me of my meddlesome methods. While you're trying to figure that one out, let me enlighten you.

Eh? You weren't. Unless you're actually in to lobbying politicians and signing conservative BS papers. I'd stopped talking to or about you in that paragraph, and gone tangentially onto those who participate in politics with a less-than-liberal (read: interfering) attitude... but, you still didn't point out where it is that you or others get a right to prohibit what a consenting couple choose to do with each other. Whether they're related or not, it never becomes the business of any other individual, any group of individuals or any organisation- including governments.

Certainly governments do meddle, because there actually 'is' prohibiting legislature. That doesn't mean the government has a legitimate mandate for that legislature. The whole purpose of the law is to protect people from other people- property law, civil law, it's all the same. Anywhere that the law is doing something else, such as enforcing a moral mandate (even the mandate of a majority in society), the law is a trespasser.

As for putting that first bit into a context-- oh, before I hit that: yes I have fought, yes, I've been hurt with a weapon, and yes, I've gone through home invasion.

Basically, it *is* better when you say 'don't murder' rather than 'don't kill'. It sounded to me initially as though you were trying to suggest that certain actions can be wrong in-and-of themselves. That's not true. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the morality of an action depends on the context and motive.

 

[retyopy]

This thread has gotten really strange. I didn't expect so many people to replay to it at first, either.

Neither did I. I thought it would be like most of my threads, and die after page 3.

Yes. Ugh hell yes it's wrong and sickening.

And to a some of these replies...wow, just wow, REALLY? You'd REALLY have sex with someone in your IMMEDIATE FAMILY? People are stretching the idea of "tolerance" way, way to far.

Speaking of being sick...I need to leave these forums for a while.

I think you are missing the point of the conversation. Just because a lot of us say we don't see a problem with it doesn't mean we are going to do it. There are lots of stories of people who were put up for adoption and later in life met and fell in love with their biological sibling not knowing they were related.

Sort of like Oedipus, except that was with his mom. And then he gouged his eyes out.

 

[retyopy]

all the guys here saying its wrong would probably have no problem watching twin women going at it.

So... You're saying that all guys have practically no scruples, and have no problem with anyone e,berassing themselves specifically for them having a brief moment of superficial pleasure. Also, that no guy ever is gay.

Finally, someone who understands! *SARCASM*

 

[Lyri]

Yeah, you wouldn't say that if you had a sister.

If I had a sister that I thought was sexually attractive

Is the key phrase.

 

[Baneat]

No, simply put.

Fuck how can you ask a sibling that question!?!? I'd run the fuck away if I was asked that from a sibling.

So, what's your actual answer?

Fleshed out in the thread.

Also: You say there's objective moral reasoning, but you've just picked things that are subjectively wrong to you and called them objective?

I tried this with the objective system I know of, Kantianism.

It's a hypothetical imperative, not categorical, so we don't go for "What if everyone did" but rather "What if who wanted to did"

"If you want to sleep with your sister, do it" - Is this universalisable? I say yes, that is, since it's such a rare thing that it's not causing the world to collapse, and I reckon anyone who is doing it isn't stopped by people saying it's wrong anyway.

Kant's systems aren't perfect, but they're the only objective ones I know of.

Conclusion:

It's amoral as an act, and it's a moral burden or suggestion to minimise the risk to babies in the first place, meaning although it's not wrong in itself, it would be moral to minimise the risk of births for the sake of said babies just as it would be moral to not drink or smoke or anything like that for the sake of your child. However, when you accept that it should be allowed for drinkers, smokers or any risk-factor takers to have children, you are automatically accepting the right for incest too.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Woahsnip

Okay the science backs the claim that increased birth defect rate. I do not dispute that, sorry if I led you to believe that was the case, I totally believe this. I don't claim to understand genetic science, if scientists tell me incest increases defect rate, I'm believing it until another better one comes along and proves it untrue, then I believe that guy and so on.

But we're at ethics here, and even with the increased defect rate I only see it as a suggestion other than it being *wrong*, and the reasoning for that is given in an earlier post I made in the thread.

Right. That's my fault for not going through and looking at what you were actually getting at.

Science can't answer ethical questions anyway. It just isn't able to. So if it's ethics you're concerned with, science isn't a very useful tool.

It's also interesting that incest laws have been around much longer than any thorough understanding of birth defects... So... It seems unlikely that would be a major part of it.