Should Incest be banned?

[mangalavara]

It's interesting how many responses seem to be unable or unwilling to address the specific carefully worded and qualified relationship described in the OP.

I’ve noticed that as well.

 

[YmirGF]

Excuse you, but you're the one who apparently thinks ****ing your relatives is acceptable. I'm not the one with bizarre, disturbing opinions that has some explaining to do. (If you don't, please correct me.) Why would you even bring this up? You live in a reality dominated by people like me, not the other way around. I'm not going to pretend that this is a serious discussion worthy of debate. I've reached my limit with degenerate crap. Are you going to ask if it's okay to have sex with animals next?

Woof!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can't do that though. It'd be like asking why we have speed limits, but limiting the answer to the assumption that everyone are excellent and rational drivers with perfectly maintained cars.

I think the underlying reason for laws against incest are because of the known risks, both birth defects and undue influence. Those issues obviously aren't always going to be relevant but as with any restrictive law, it is a matter of balancing the risk and restriction. Allowing incest might be somewhat beneficial to a small number of people but would increase risk to others.

I think the other issue is that, rightly or not, if you're seeking to change a law in either direction, you need to make a stronger case than you would to keep it as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Apropos of nothing, how hot is your sister?

If the risk thing were true many things would be banned. But it isn't, and it isn't necessarily risky as first cousin pairing has been a commonly enough seen practice usually without issue because it generally takes multiple generations of close breeding for the effects of it to be seen (they can also be beneficial or neutral).

 

[Tiberius]

That's not what I said. I was referring to the specific situation you proposed to me about a mother and her child who, as an adult, met for the first time and they fell in love. Of course that would be less awful than if a mother had groomed her child when they were a minor into being their lover when they became an adult, which was what I had talked about in the previous post. You then jumped to this conclusion and assumed I was making claims, or something

I'm kind of confused about the conclusions you're jumping to. Maybe if I were to be more clear that when I say "child" I mean offspring as the context of this discussion is incest, not pedophelia

That situation is still two consenting adults. So I don't know why you think it needs to be split any finer than that.

So what exactly is your problem with that situation?

 

[JerusalemBull]

There is no direct answer ,it depends about the relation type and the two parties?

 

[Tiberius]

There is no direct answer ,it depends about the relation type and the two parties?

Like I said, they are consenting adults.

 

[Glaurung]

There is no rational basis to object to sexual activity between two closely related adults if you view consent as the sole meaningful consideration for the morality of a sexual act.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Excuse you, but you're the one who apparently thinks ****ing your relatives is acceptable. I'm not the one with bizarre, disturbing opinions that has some explaining to do. (If you don't, please correct me.) Why would you even bring this up? You live in a reality dominated by people like me, not the other way around. I'm not going to pretend that this is a serious discussion worthy of debate. I've reached my limit with degenerate crap. Are you going to ask if it's okay to have sex with animals next?

If you can't defend it is a position worth holding? Have you thought it out?
As I mentioned earlier, first cousin pairing has been common in the past despite the fact it's generally regarded as incest today. And any genetic risks aren't likely to manifest until multiple generations are born.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no rational basis to object to sexual activity between two closely related adults if you view consent as the sole meaningful consideration for the morality of a sexual act.

Yup. Even if it turns me off, even if it grosses me out, even if I just don't get it as long as it's consensual and not creating victims why should I care? It's probably better, afterall, to leave legislation out of such things so others don't get freedoms snipped without good reason.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you can't defend it is a position worth holding? Have you thought it out?
As I mentioned earlier, first cousin pairing has been common in the past despite the fact it's generally regarded as incest today. And any genetic risks aren't likely to manifest until multiple generations are born.

Yikes! You, too? As a person who worked in mental health, you actually think incest is acceptable? Tsk tsk. I'm not seeing any good arguments for it, just the same lame "consenting adults" garbage, which is lazy and doesn't even begin to consider wider society. It's the go-to argument for hedonists and nihilists, though. Repeating "consenting adults" over and over is not an argument. People have consented to being murdered before. People consent to things that are bad for them and those around them all the time. Have you thought this out?

Also, I gave my reasons why. I don't know why you and the other guy act I didn't give my reasons.

First cousin pairings still cause issues and aren't desirable. We know this. A lot of things were common in the past that are No longer acceptable, of course, and that's one of them. Many times, such arrangements were a matter of survivial. We have no need for it now. Plenty of potential partners to choose from these days. No incestual pairing is going to be healthy at the very least psychologically, compared to non-blood related pairings. It's really quite simple.

 

[Echogem222]

The title says it all, really. Do you think there is a problem with incest (keeping the debate limited solely to individuals who are genetically closely related having sex with each other for fun rather than reproduction) that justifies it being banned? What reasons do you have for your position?

Bear in mind that I want to discuss the issue with regards to consenting adults. Naturally, I think a parent who has sexual contact with their young child is doing something that is harmful, but that is because it is sexual contact with a young child. Likewise any cases where one person is pressured against their will to be involved.

I also don't want to bring up the issue of genetic problems in any children that are produced. Birth control is easy, safe and effective. I'd like to keep it confined to the issue of the act of sex alone.

So please base your discussion on whether the people involved are consenting adults who are not being unduly influenced in any way whatsoever.

I don't have issues with that type of incest at all, however, governments have actually tried to control who has children and who doesn't, and it failed terribly. So, unless the two people are the same sex, have been physically prevented from being able to have children, I can't agree that incest is ok.

As for why that type of incest is ok, it's because it's the same as it would be with two consenting adults having sex.

+++

I've heard about someone mentioning that saying incest is ok is like saying it's fine if a person has sex with an animal on this thread, and I'd argue that's not the case at all since animals can't communicate what they actually want or don't want like we can. It might seem like they're ok with that, but without them having the same amount of knowledge as humans generally do, and their lifespans being far shorter than humans sometimes, it's just too complex for such cases to be treated as the same for humans. There's a reason why psychology doesn't apply the same way to animals that it does to humans:

The psychology of animals is different from humans due to a combination of evolutionary, genetic, and environmental factors. Here are some key reasons for these differences:

1. Evolutionary History: Humans and animals have diverged on the evolutionary tree for millions of years, leading to the development of distinct physiological and psychological traits. Different species have adapted to their specific ecological niches, which has shaped their behaviors, cognitive abilities, and sensory perceptions differently.

2. Brain Structure and Function: While many animals share certain brain structures and functions with humans, the proportions and complexities can vary significantly. The human brain, for instance, has a highly developed neocortex, responsible for complex cognitive functions like reasoning, language, and problem-solving. While some animals have comparable brain regions, they might not be as elaborated or serve the same functions.

3. Cognitive Abilities: Animals vary in their cognitive abilities, with some species displaying remarkable problem-solving, tool use, memory, and social skills. However, the extent and complexity of these abilities often differ from human cognitive capacities. For example, while some animals exhibit impressive problem-solving skills, their reasoning might be more instinctual and less abstract than human reasoning.

4. Communication and Language: Human language is unparalleled in its complexity, enabling us to convey abstract concepts and discuss distant or abstract events. While animals communicate in various ways, such as through vocalizations, body language, and chemical signals, their communication systems are generally less intricate and lack the syntactic and semantic depth of human language.

5. Social Structures: Animals have diverse social structures, ranging from solitary individuals to complex social groups. Human societies are characterized by their intricate social hierarchies, cultural norms, and cooperation on a large scale. While animals also display social behaviors, the motivations and dynamics might differ significantly.

6. Emotional Experience: Animals undoubtedly experience emotions, but the range and depth of emotions can vary between species. While some animals exhibit behaviors suggestive of emotions like joy, fear, or affection, these experiences might not match the full spectrum of human emotions due to differences in brain complexity and hormonal systems.

7. Environmental Adaptations: Animals adapt to their environments through behaviors and traits that increase their chances of survival and reproduction. These adaptations can lead to variations in behavior and cognition that might not align with human psychology. For example, the prey-predator relationships and survival strategies of animals often shape their behaviors in unique ways.

8. Sensory Perceptions: Animals perceive the world through their senses, which can differ from human sensory experiences. Different animals might have specialized sensory organs that allow them to perceive aspects of the environment that humans cannot. This can lead to differences in how animals perceive and interact with their surroundings.

In summary, the differences in the psychology of animals and humans stem from the complex interplay of evolutionary history, brain structure and function, cognitive abilities, communication systems, social structures, emotional experiences, environmental adaptations, and sensory perceptions. While there are undoubtedly shared traits and behaviors, each species has developed its own psychological profile optimized for its ecological niche and evolutionary trajectory.

 

[We Never Know]

The title says it all, really. Do you think there is a problem with incest (keeping the debate limited solely to individuals who are genetically closely related having sex with each other for fun rather than reproduction) that justifies it being banned? What reasons do you have for your position?

Bear in mind that I want to discuss the issue with regards to consenting adults. Naturally, I think a parent who has sexual contact with their young child is doing something that is harmful, but that is because it is sexual contact with a young child. Likewise any cases where one person is pressured against their will to be involved.

I also don't want to bring up the issue of genetic problems in any children that are produced. Birth control is easy, safe and effective. I'd like to keep it confined to the issue of the act of sex alone.

So please base your discussion on whether the people involved are consenting adults who are not being unduly influenced in any way whatsoever.

Ewww!

On the other hand.....
Foreplay in Arkansas- "Sis are you awake?"

 

[Father Heathen]

Again,

Yikes! You, too? As a person who worked in mental health, you actually think incest is acceptable? Tsk tsk. I'm not seeing any good arguments for it, just the same lame "consenting adults" garbage, which is lazy and doesn't even begin to consider wider society. It's the go-to argument for hedonists and nihilists, though. Repeating "consenting adults" over and over is not an argument. People have consented to being murdered before. People consent to things that are bad for them and those around them all the time. Have you thought this out?

Also, I gave my reasons why. I don't know why you and the other guy act I didn't give my reasons.

First cousin pairings still cause issues and aren't desirable. We know this. A lot of things were common in the past that are No longer acceptable, of course, and that's one of them. Many times, such arrangements were a matter of survivial. We have no need for it now. Plenty of potential partners to choose from these days. No incestual pairing is going to be healthy at the very least psychologically, compared to non-blood related pairings. It's really quite simple.

Like I said, I consider incest to be disturbing and disgusting, and psychologically unhealthy, so I certainly don't approve of it. But if we were to base legality on such criteria and were consistent about it, we would have to ban a lot more than just incest. I'm defending liberty, not incest. If they're not harming or endangering others, then it's not my business.

 

[PureX]

I think we need to base legality on it's effectiveness.

The instances of adult consensual incest are extremely rare, will happen regardless of any laws, and will never be prosecuted.

The instances of incest involving minors, however, are all too common, and often do need to be prosecuted. So for that reason I would keep incest illegal as both a deterrent to child sexual abuse and an added means of prosecuting those who engage in such abuse.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ewww!

Now you're going to be demanded to write a huge essay as to why it's gross.

 

[We Never Know]

Now you're going to be demanded to write a huge essay as to why it's gross.

I'll get right on that lol

 

[Alien826]

Now you're going to be demanded to write a huge essay as to why it's gross.

Actually, that's not unreasonable. The problem is that we have had "incest is wrong" drummed into us for so long that it feels like a law of nature. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong, but it does suggest that a re-examination is appropriate. How about this as a test?

Show someone videos of two different couples having sex. Ask for his/her reaction to each. If the reaction to both is "Eeew", then there is no need to go on, he thinks all sex is yucky. If he says "Eeew" to one and not the other ask why. It seems odd, but there could be a reason.

Then tell him that one of the couples are brother and sister. If his reaction changes then he really does think incest is yucky, but why? Ask what changed his reaction to the same video.

Note, I'm talking about a visceral reaction, not some reasoned position that incest is wrong because ... whatever.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually, that's not unreasonable.

Told ya, @We Never Know !

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong, but it does suggest that a re-examination is appropriate.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We don't need to deconstruct every single thing.

 

[We Never Know]

Told ya, @We Never Know !


If it ain't broken, don't fix it. We don't need to deconstruct every single thing.

I will get right on that.... As soon as I get off my sister lol

 

[Alien826]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We don't need to deconstruct every single thing.

But why can't we discuss it in a forum that is set up to discuss (sometimes odd) things? Nothing anyone says here is going to make any difference to what happens IRL. When someone tries to shut down debate on a subject without actually putting forward arguments, then it raises a red flag to me (not specifically accusing you of anything). If it disturbs you, pick another thread. Nobody is forcing you to participate.