Poll: Is incest wrong if it's consensual?

[Halen McCallum]

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

 

[Baneat]

The idea at the center on my morality has always been 'do whatever makes you happy as long as it isn't hurting anyone else'. If the sex is concentual and there's no chance of producing offspring then, I guess, it's alright. It grosses me out to my core for what I would imagine are biological instincts, but hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: When two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891). The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.

In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result provides evidence not only that the Westermarck effect is demonstrable but that it operates during the period from birth to the age of six.[4]

When proximity during this critical period does not occur ? for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another - they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults. This phenomenon is known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation supports the hypothesis that the Westermarck effect evolved because it suppressed inbreeding. This attraction may also be seen with cousin couples.

Wikipedia, just interesting reading. That's the biological instinct, so children raised apart won't get the ick unless they were actually told they were brothers and sisters, and even then it's not imprinted.

 

[Loop Stricken]

SNIP

Incest is a bit more controversial than blood transfusions. Yes, SOME religions see blood transfusions as unnatural, but incest is almost universally disliked by all, save it's practitioners.

But now you're down to the old chestnut of common opinion makes rightness, and I don't need to patronise you with examples of how insane that logic is.

It's not just about common opinion, incest can lead to birth defects, which is why I also said that it's not natural.

So can 'normal' cest. And of all the afflictions someone can be afflicted with, birth defects from genetic causes are amongst the most natural of them.

Your kids riding in a car can get killed in an accident whether or not you make them wear a seatbelt, but you still get your kids to wear a seatbelt because cutting back on the odds of hideously deforming or killing them is a damn good practice. Same logic applies to incest.

Shall we go back to banning people with mental disorders from having kids? Many of them have a MUCH greater chance of passing on their problems to offspring. While we are at it, let's just ban anyone with an inheritable disease from having kids, the risk is there!

Honestly, that's not all that bad of an idea. Harsh and unpopular sure, but probably true. But evolution didn't instill that sort of natural selection in us, while it does understand incest.

Evolution didn't teach us that mental disorders existed. And let's be honest, mental disorders are generally completely psychological and thus not passed on genetically.
Unless you're trying to be tactful and not mentioning Down's Syndrome by name. Becuase that's genetic, a chromosome problem.

Yeah, that's the point. Primitive man doesn't understand a learning disability or being prone to a disease you might get should you live to be the positively ancient age of 35. It does understand that that person with tits is your sister and you don't hit that, because animals that do that end up doing it a bunch and turn into extras from, "The Hills Have Eyes".

Also, saying that psychological disorders have no genetic competent is just absolutely and completely false.

1) I did say generally.
2) Animals DO do that. Lots. Hamsters? Pretty much ALL hamsters you buy from pet shops nowadays? All from one batch of something like ten that were found in some eastern European country iirc.

of course back them hamsters were as big as giraffes and had wings.

 

[IAmTheVoid]

I'm not usually one to go 'It's simply morally wrong because it is so there', because I feel that's always an inadequate response. But in this case... I'm afraid I'm wholly succumbing to the social stigma. Just thinking about it makes me squirm in an uncontrollable way.

Who am I to say it should be forbidden to everyone, though?

 

[Loop Stricken]

EDIT: A lot of people think that something like that is going on in my family. No. Just... No. The thought is just... *vomits*

Your statement shows the exactness of the wrongness.

No, only that he doesn't find his family attractive.
I don't find my family attractive and don't enjoy the image of relations between us being planted in my head. But if I had a sister I found sexually attractive and reciprocated, I'd be all up in that. Because hey, a girl.

Well unless you were separated from you sister at a young age for a long period of time you will never find her attractive. Ever heard of the Westermarck effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29#Westermarck_effect

That is reason enough for me to consider it wrong it's just not natural for humans to be attracted to family.

Yes, I have heard of it. Last I heard it was on pretty shaky ground on account of being a bit shit of a theory.

Edit: or not. Might've been something else. ALAS!

 

[Kargathia]

Debating whether it's morally wrong to have a consensual incestuous relationship is something that doesn't even matter.
The incest part doesn't even come into play yet - the problem is "consensual".

Family members can excercise way too much influence over each other to truly be able to say something is consensual. It's not a case of "it always is like this", it is a case of "it might be like this, and that's why it's best to ban it altogether".

The same thing goes for relations between teacher and pupil. A sexual relationship with your student gets you jailed, and put on the sex offenders list. Even if the both of you are adults, and even if it was the student asking you out for dates / dinner / etc.

It's just a case of accepting the responsibility of being in an influentual position.

This is true of any relationship as simply by virtue of being in a relationship they're probably influential in their life. ANY relationship has the potential for abuse, that doesn't mean you ban relationships altogether, it means you try to stop the abusive ones. I mean, can't you see how the "it might be like this, and that's why it's best to ban it altogether" thing could be applied to almost anything? "Guns can be used to break into someone's house and murder someone, better ban guns". "People can get drunk and run someone over, better ban cars". "Policeman might abuse their authority, better ban policeman". Plus, here's the thing. If one of the participants is really abusive or exploiting their position do you think they're going to care if incest is illegal or taboo or whatever? No! In much the same way banning guns doesn't prevent people getting shot, banning incest isn't going to prevent abusive family relations.

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.
This indeed does also happen within other relations - ask anyone working in Social Services, and you'll hear a few horror stories.
I'm not entirely sure though what your point is about legislation not preventing all perpetrators. Has it ever, for any crime?

The main difference between my examples and yours is that mine are banned because the the negative chances far outweigh the positive sides. And in a more cynical view: because public opinion isn't in favor of banning cars. (Guns are effectively banned in many countries though).

 

[shadowyoasis]

I can't fault the OP for having the topic at dinner, I've had some insane ones pop up at our dinner table. Never that, though.

My Grandma did go into a rant once about the reason that my mother and father got divorced was because there wasn't enough sex in the relationship. Trying eating your meal after that.

As far as the topic is concerned.

The majority of inbreeding the lay folk refer isn't brother/sister relations, but cousins. "The royal family did it all the time!". Never with a brother/sister AFAIK.

Most studies on sexual attraction at a biological level, have shown that we are predisposed to not be attracted to our own siblings at any level and that those who are usually show some kind of social problems or trauma. Not the case for cousins, which we have no genetic deposition to not breed with them, only social immorality which is culturally based. There are also things like the Westermarck effect which imprints on us a tendency to avoid sexual relationships with those we were raised with.

So incest as defined as brother/sister relationship, even consensual between two adults is wrong.

The area is more grey when talking about cousins, or even second cousins. If you sleep with your grandfather's brother's granddaughter is it really incest? Thats a question for society to answer.

Personally if I have any knowledge of our family trees intersecting thats abit too much for me. Even if its not a blood relationship. For example, brother-in-law(sister's husband)'s cousin is totally in love with me. I find the whole thing a bit weird. But I don't find anything morally wrong with me and her having a relationship. Nor would I mind too much, it would just take a little more convincing than normal to jump on that wagon.

 

[Herianden78]

The societal revulsion to the idea of incest just came from the fact that incest spawned babies tend to have mutations.

As long as you aren't making babies and risking bringing malformed babies into the world I have no problem with incest, I don't think it's morally wrong at all.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Most studies on sexual attraction at a biological level, have shown that we are predisposed to not be attracted to our own siblings at any level and that those who are usually show some kind of social problems or trauma. Not the case for cousins, which we have no genetic deposition to not breed with them, only social immorality which is culturally based. There are also things like the Westermarck effect which imprints on us a tendency to avoid sexual relationships with those we were raised with.

So incest as defined as brother/sister relationship, even consensual between two adults is wrong.

Nnnnnnnooooooooooooooo. Just made unlikely.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

I don't think it should be illegal honestly, it's wrong to tell anyone who they can and cannot have sex with.

That being said...OF COURSE INCEST IS WRONG!!! It's the motherfucking family. Gross, disgusting, and shameful.

 

[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.

 

[Autofaux]

Alexei Romanov...

Don't know why I said that.

 

[Gunjester]

As regards (1), what % of women are "known to be psychologically screwed up by abortion"?
Stats from a peer reviewed study please.
Anecdotes and Urban Legends do not count, nor does so called pro-life propaganda.

This isn't "Pro-life propaganda".
Found this from a site solely devoted to bare facts on abortion, and has links for both sides.
"National statistics on abortion show that 10% of women undergoing induced abortion suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth (20%) were considered major." That'd be just American Statistics. Don't say 10% isn't significant, especially when thats only 'Immediate effect'.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp
Try and keep this away from Fox News-esque name-calling like all pro-lifers being propagandists and We'll keep from raising judgement of Pro-choice people.

 

[shadowyoasis]

Instead of boning your family member, take a walk into town, find a hooker, and do her.
That way thanksgiving isnt awkward.
Except for the fact you'll be scratching more. They arent clean.

Thats why I pay extra, so they let me hose them down first.

 

[Grospoliner]

It's fine but no kid's should be born from such a relationship

 

[Loop Stricken]

Incest is not morally reprehensible. Anyone saying so must have the moral and logical comprehension of a child.

Why? Because being against incest boils down to "ew, I wouldn't do my sibling/cousin/parent! so it's wrong!". You guys know that 99% of homophobes oppose gay marriage for that very reason, and that you are likely to oppose them for it?

Anyway, you literally cannot support homosexuality without supporting incest, because all of the arguments that apply to homosexuality support also apply to incest.

Except for the genetic defects it can produce and the fact that we develop a metal block that prevents us from being attracted to our immediate family.

People tend to develop an aversion to pain.

Oh wait, BDSM.

 

[dj Facchiano]

Meh. People should be able to do whatever the hell they want without being judged as long as nobody is hurt in the process. Just my opinion :/

I feel that way to, but I have to ask this. What if a child is conceived from this with horrible birth defects. The mother refuses to abort and this kid is born into the world a barely functioning mass of flesh that will need to be taken care of the rest of their life. Now, I'm using an extreme one-sided example but I thought it might be something to take into consideration. Once again I do share that as long as no harm is done to anyone else physically, mentally or emotionally as well as others personal property people should be able to do whatever they want. I'm not trying to start a debate, just bringing up a point if possible.

Hmm that brings on a different question, Should parents be allowed to have a child if they know it will have birth defects? I think the answer to that question would depend on your moral alignment, in my case I don't think I'm experienced enough to give a legitimate answer.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Incest is not morally reprehensible. Anyone saying so must have the moral and logical comprehension of a child.

Why? Because being against incest boils down to "ew, I wouldn't do my sibling/cousin/parent! so it's wrong!". You guys know that 99% of homophobes oppose gay marriage for that very reason, and that you are likely to oppose them for it?

Anyway, you literally cannot support homosexuality without supporting incest, because all of the arguments that apply to homosexuality support also apply to incest.

Except for the genetic defects it can produce and the fact that we develop a metal block that prevents us from being attracted to our immediate family.

People tend to develop an aversion to pain.

Oh wait, BDSM.

That?s hardly the same.

I know, I know, but it's 4am and I'm tired of saying the same old thing over and over again.

 

[souper soup guy]

It's not my thing, and I'm very creeped out by it, but its not wrong. Just keep it in your bedroom and you can do whatever you want.

 

[mizushinzui]

Morally no consenting sex is wrong (except consenting sex below the age of consent...yeah) if they are both of a sound mind and of adult age ,i.e. over 18/16 and not brainwashed, mentally deficient or blindfolded, then there is nothing really on a moral level that makes this wrong. This excludes if they don't use contraception, that's just being an idiot. It's illegal because bringing an inbred infant into the world isn't fair to the child, the parents, the family or society. If you're going to bang your sister rubber up dude.

Incest is however a societal taboo and if you decide that you're going to take it up as a hobby you probably shouldn't shout about it ( I know that OP isn't considering it, I'm just pointing this fact out)

Also on a psychological level this has been talked about before hasn't it? Was it Freud who said that all boys want to sleep with their mothers secretly? or something like that... I need to stop watching late night documentary television.