Incest. Why Not?

[sun rise]

From a strictly biological point of view many animal species avoid incest Do wild animals avoid incest? | Questions | Naked Scientists Of course there are exceptions, but there's a sound, biological reason to avoid this.

And it's related to growing up together apparently:

"The Kibbutz communities in Israel are a good example," she said. Only weeks after birth, mothers give their kids to a "children's society" staffed by trained caregivers. Lieberman said people raised in the same community are much less likely to marry each other than someone from a neighboring area.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From a strictly biological point of view many animal species avoid incest Do wild animals avoid incest? | Questions | Naked Scientists Of course there are exceptions, but there's a sound, biological reason to avoid this.

And it's related to growing up together apparently:

"The Kibbutz communities in Israel are a good example," she said. Only weeks after birth, mothers give their kids to a "children's society" staffed by trained caregivers. Lieberman said people raised in the same community are much less likely to marry each other than someone from a neighboring area.

domestic animals including Pigs cattle sheep goats rabbits cats and dogs certainly do not avoid incest It is a constant problem for farmers and breeders. frogs will try it on with anything that smell like a frog.

 

[Vouthon]

I have no doubt that an argument can be concocted for creating any victim-less crime. However, I think it's immoral to write such laws.

Whether or not it should be a criminal matter, my overriding concern is that it shouldn't become socially accepted given the implications. Legislation can help to circumscribe what is socially acceptable but it is not the only way (indeed, it can be a less efficacious means of prohibiting certain behaviours, as one can see from the various wars on drugs).

You often make reference to the arch of moral progress in conscience throughout history. Ironically, the incest taboo in premodern society and its gradual development into a wider movement away from patriarchal kinship and towards individual liberties and exogamy, is a notable example of this trend.

The freedom to marry - which traditionally has been near impossible within patriarchal kinship groups - is part of the process by which the individual gains independence from external control.

In Antiquity, kin and tribe were everything. People were often forced to marry within their kin (i.e. cousins) or narrow ethnic group. The distinction between public and private had not yet developed and so there was little recognition of individual agency. Inequality was an unquestioned virtue; all morality and authority was vested in the paterfamilias, the male keeper of the clan. There were no subjective, individual rights as such, not even to life, outside the hierarchical family unit. All human agency was oriented towards the preservation and honour of the sacred household, its gods and the lineage of its members, in particular the male head.

Thankfully, through exogamy, humanity moved away from this - at least in the Western world (not in the Middle East, unfortunately).

 

[Vouthon]

That said, I know of a brother and sister that were raised apart and didn't meet each other until adulthood. He had a vasectomy, so there was no risk of pregnancy. She said it was some of the best sex she ever had. The sexual relationship didn't last, but was clearly significant to both of them.

Out of curiosity, had they known at the time of commencing their sexual relationship that they were siblings?

One hears of stories about 'genetic attraction', whereby people who are unaware of their familial connection fall passionately in love only to later find out that they are close relatives. This is obviously a far more "grey" and complicated issue than straight out incest with someone you've been raised as brother or sister with.

I've read that serious counselling is often needed for such people to come to terms with it but seemingly not in the case of your friends? They were perfectly OK about it all? Hmm.

I wonder if they managed to become, erm, like a normal brother and sister after that "significant" set of events. Somehow I doubt it, in all fairness

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thankfully, through exogamy, humanity moved away from this - at least in the Western world (not in the Middle East, unfortunately).

Also not in the royal families of Europe.

 

[Vouthon]

Also not in the royal families of Europe.

Yep, that's another one. Atrocious levels of inbreeding to avoid "pauper's blood" ruining the royal pedigree.

Avunculate marriage, between uncles and nieces, was actually practised by the Hapsburgs. With devastating effects on their progeny....

 

[PureX]

I do not know if that is true or not, figures, for obvious reasons, are not available.
In any event, Incest happens, it prevalence is unknown, because no one can admits to it.

It is only the few cases that come to court that we ever hear about.

We know enough to say that even when illegal, sexual activity within families is happening quite a lot and usually with very damaging effects. Only we don't generally refer to it as "incest" so much as we call it rape. Mostly because that's what it is.

 

[Skwim]

Now I am sure that ypu have had it better explained to you on this very forum. This smacks of dishonesty.

In case you have forgotten:

1) Power dynamics are learned and ingrained throughout childhood.

I thought this was covered when I said,

"I recognize there's a psychological power component that can come into play between a parent and child, but it's not a necessary given. So this aside:"
​

Sorry you failed to pick up on it, or can't set it aside.

Laws against incest protect children and people from abuse.

I assume you feel we should also have laws against driving motor vehicles so as to protect people from injury and death because of all the deaths that result from it.

2) Incestuous relationships produce higher rates of defects. Prohibiting this at the level of excluding all relationships involves the government the least.

*sigh*

.

There's also the issue of consent, regardless of whether a person is a blood relation.

Close family members can have undue influence on each other. This is why many jurisdictions require that close family members looking to enter into a contract with each other have to get independent legal advice.

As I told Curious George, I thought this was covered when I said,

"I recognize there's a psychological power component that can come into play between a parent and child, but it's not a necessary given. So this aside:"​

I think the same holds true with incest: if free consent isn't clear, then sex shouldn't happen.

Absolutely.

.

 

[joe1776]

Whether or not it should be a criminal matter, my overriding concern is that it shouldn't become socially accepted given the implications. Legislation can help to circumscribe what is socially acceptable but it is not the only way (indeed, it can be a less efficacious means of prohibiting certain behaviours, as one can see from the various wars on drugs).

You often make reference to the arch of moral progress in conscience throughout history. Ironically, the incest taboo in premodern society and its gradual development into a wider movement away from patriarchal kinship and towards individual liberties and exogamy, is a notable example of this trend.

The freedom to marry - which traditionally has been near impossible within patriarchal kinship groups - is part of the process by which the individual gains independence from external control.

In Antiquity, kin and tribe were everything. People were often forced to marry within their kin (i.e. cousins) or narrow ethnic group. The distinction between public and private had not yet developed and so there was little recognition of individual agency. Inequality was an unquestioned virtue; all morality and authority was vested in the paterfamilias, the male keeper of the clan. There were no subjective, individual rights as such, not even to life, outside the hierarchical family unit. All human agency was oriented towards the preservation and honour of the sacred household, its gods and the lineage of its members, in particular the male head.

Thankfully, through exogamy, humanity moved away from this - at least in the Western world (not in the Middle East, unfortunately).

I think the judgments of conscience are intuitions aligned with the survival instincts of our species which is involved in a cooperative endeavor. Consensual, homosexual sex that can't reproduce isn't a positive in that goal but its not a negative either.

Since there are other ways homosexuals can contribute to the cooperative effort, conscience wisely guides us toward equality under the law. Morally mature nations have stopped making laws to criminalize their behavior. Moreover, many, if not most, of us feel no need to condemn their lifestyle because doing so just doesn't feel right.

I see no difference between the social implications of homosexual sex and those of consenting adults who cannot reproduce engaging in incest. It's not my thing, but they aren't harming someone innocent, so it's none of my business.

 

[Skwim]

If I may ask, in all politeness, why do you have this apparent obsession with incest?

Actually, I don't. I simply find it interesting, as do others (so far 48 responses in only 8 hours) and as do you, having so far made 7 posts here, plus your 12 posts in Poseidon Soter's Mar 25, 2018 thread "What's wrong with incest?" which had 194 responses. And, of course, I'm far from the only one making threads on incest. Looking into the history of incest threads I found that out of the 519 pages of listed threads and posts mentioning incest, within the most recent last two pages we find the following threads mentioned:

"The Morality of Incest" by Keith Nielsen, Sept 2, 2018

"What's wrong with incest?" by Poseidon Soter, Mar 25, 2018

"Incest" by spellbound, Oct. 24, 2014

"Incest in your beliefs" by Smart Guy, May 7, 2016

"Incest" by edwinic, May 10, 2014

"North Carolina father-daughter couple arrested for incest after having love child" by Hammzah, Feb. 4, 2018

"Monogenism and Incest in the Bible" by Zoogirl02, Mar. 23, 2016

"Incest among other kinds of sex." by Smart Guy, Feb. 23 2016

"Genesis = the Book of Incest" by migueldarican, Mar. 20, 2015

"Would liberals defend incest?" by MD, Feb. 12, 2014

"Is incest immoral?" by godlikemadman, Feb. 22, 2012

"Should incest be banned?" by nnmartin, Jan 20, 2012
​

You have spoken about it so much on this forum and always seem to be offering justifications for it.

Which, in certain situations, I feel there is, and why I take exception to the broad legal prohibition of it.

Incest laws remind me of the saying:

"Behind every bad law, a deep fear."​

.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

domestic animals including Pigs cattle sheep goats rabbits cats and dogs certainly do not avoid incest It is a constant problem for farmers and breeders. frogs will try it on with anything that smell like a frog.

This is very much the case. Many, many species, both domesticated and wild, are not selective in this way. Animal breeders use this fact with livestock and domestic pets.

 

[Curious George]

I thought this was covered when I said,

"I recognize there's a psychological power component that can come into play between a parent and child, but it's not a necessary given. So this aside:"
​

Sorry you failed to pick up on it, or can't set it aside.

What else do you need man?

I assume you feel we should also have laws against driving motor vehicles so as to protect people from injury and death because of all the deaths that result from it.

Pretty sure we do regulate driving. For instance, despite the fact that not every drunk driver is going to cause harm, we have made it illegal to drive drunk on a public roadway. Yet I do not see you making annual threads askimg why drunk driving isn't illegal.

 

[Skwim]

Pretty sure we do regulate driving. For instance, despite the fact that not every drunk driver is going to cause harm, we have made it illegal to drive drunk on a public roadway. Yet I do not see you making annual threads askimg why drunk driving isn't illegal.

Not "regulate driving," but "laws against driving motor vehicles," by which I mean laws preventing anyone from driving any motor vehicle.

.

 

[Curious George]

Not "regulate driving," but "laws against driving motor vehicles," by which I mean laws preventing anyone from driving any motor vehicle.

.

You have a better regulation that serves the governmental interest and is less restrictive? Regulating driving is certainly a viable alternative to banning driving. Regulating driving is not seen as more invasive. I think the example I gave is analogous. Care to respond as to why you do not post threads about whether we ought to allow drunk driving?

 

[Skwim]

Regulating driving is certainly a viable alternative to banning driving.

As would legalizing incest in those circumstances where it's not inherently detrimental.

Care to respond as to why you do not post threads about whether we ought to allow drunk driving?

Nah. Following your attempt to lead the thread off topic isn't gong to help either you or the thread.

.

 

[Curious George]

As would legalizing incest in those circumstances where it's not inherently detrimental.

And I agreed that it would be fine to have laws against incest with a rebuttable presumption. This means that we assume one thing and a person can prove otherwise.

Nah. Following your attempt to lead the thread off topic isn't gong to help either you or the thread.

.

It doesn't take this thread off topic at all. It highlights your bias with this subject. You likely understand why we can and do make drunk driving illegal, but are incapable of applying that reason to incest regardless of how many times it is offerred.

 

[Skwim]

And I agreed that it would be fine to have laws against incest with a rebuttable presumption. This means that we assume one thing and a person can prove otherwise.

In this issue I prefer the idea that a person be considered innocent until proven guilty, over the notion that a person be considered guilty until proven innocent.

It doesn't take this thread off topic at all. It highlights your bias with this subject.

Exactly what bias is this? I've already said

" . . . in certain situations, I feel there is [justification for incest], and why I take exception to the broad legal prohibition of it."
​

So if there's any bias, I can only see it as a bias toward pragmatic reason.

You likely understand why we can and do make drunk driving illegal, but are incapable of applying that reason to incest regardless of how many times it is offerred.

In so far as completely outlawing all incest I find the given reasons unpersuasive. As for outlawing some, even most, incest, I do go along with them.

.

 

[Curious George]

In this issue I prefer the idea that a person be considered innocent until proven guilty, over the notion that a person be considered guilty until proven innocent.

I am not so sure that it is a presumption of guilt. It is merely the presumption of a power dynamic and undue influemce in familial relations.

You can make the argument that such a presumption is tantamount to a presumption of guilt. But guilt is establish by proving beyond reasonable doubt that a person engaged in sexual relations with a close relative.

Exactly what bias is this? I've already said

" . . . in certain situations, I feel there is [justification for incest], and why I take exception to the broad legal prohibition of it."
​

So if there's any bias, I can only see it as a bias toward pragmatic reason.



In so far as completely outlawing all incest I find the given reasons unpersuasive. As for outlawing some, even most, incest, I do go along with them.

.

The bias that this hasn't ever been explained to you reasonably beyond the "ick" factor.

 

[Skwim]

The bias that this hasn't ever been explained to you reasonably beyond the "ick" factor.

Yes, as it applies to the moral judgement.

"Typically it comes down to a long standing prohibition based on moral judgement, which I've never heard explained any better than: "it's bad" or "It's icky."
​

Have a good day.

.

 

[Polymath257]

Out of curiosity, had they known at the time of commencing their sexual relationship that they were siblings?

One hears of stories about 'genetic attraction', whereby people who are unaware of their familial connection fall passionately in love only to later find out that they are close relatives. This is obviously a far more "grey" and complicated issue than straight out incest with someone you've been raised as brother or sister with.

I've read that serious counselling is often needed for such people to come to terms with it but seemingly not in the case of your friends? They were perfectly OK about it all? Hmm.

I wonder if they managed to become, erm, like a normal brother and sister after that "significant" set of events. Somehow I doubt it, in all fairness

Yes, they knew they were siblings when they started. They had found each other because one was looking for siblings (I think it was him, but I forget).

The sexual relationship was called off when her ex threatened to have her kids taken away. That's a whole different aspect of this: that others were threatening legal action because of what they were doing.

As I understand it, they are now more like close brother and sister, but don't see each other often.