What's wrong with incest?

[Estro Felino]

First, I don’t accept at face value your map, both on factuality nor interpretation. Secondly I recognize a difference between non-criminality and approval. There are locals that have de-criminalized minor prostitution too, but that isn’t to condone it. Thirdly I don’t look to Europe as some sort of moral example. They have been persecuting and murdering my coreligionists for millennia. Lastly, yeah gross. I am not interested in dwelling on how other people have sex. That’s vulgar. Incest even more so. It’s like pornography, if I have to explain to you or somebody why it’s gross then there really is no point.

There are some 6,000,000,000 people in the world. If a person has about 25 close relations, I don’t see how limiting people to 5,999,999,975 potential sex partners so we can eliminate incest is too much to ask. I don’t know why you self elected to become the evangelist for incest, but you might find a new hobby.

Lol...that map is not that accurate, that is true. Juridically speaking the law (in most European countries) is amoral, so therefore sex between consenting adults can only be limited for other reasons, other than moral.
And the law cannot approve of heterosexual incest, since biology has showed how dangerous its consequences are.
But since homosexual relations don't produce offspring, I don't see why same-sex relations between consenting siblings should be forbidden.

 

[Skwim]

It’s weird you say this because I think I’m kinda neutral on it. I wouldn’t be into it but consenting adults can live their lives as they wish. But I’m not sure we can guarantee no pregnancies lol But I understand your point.

Sure we can.

Tubal ligation
Vasectomy
Any time after having been in menopause for a year

.​

 

[Skwim]

Yes,..the Italian law about incest implies that two siblings who have consensual sex can never be accused of a crime, if they keep their relationship secret (private).

Not really. Secrecy isn't required if it doesn't provoke a public scandal. If everyone in town is of the opinion that sex between siblings is okey dokey then there's no need for secrecy on this particular point.

.

 

[David T]

Agreed. So what do you think to incest which does not (cannot) result in the birth of children?

Are we talking minor and adult? That isn't incest it's much worse it's abuse of power in the worst way. That's a problem.

Or are you talking adult with adult like woody Allen and his wife. They don't practice incest literally but that is, an interesting relationship none the less.

There is also The case of a brother and a sister separated at birth with the parents divorcing each taking custody of a child. The brother and sister meet at college, fall in love, have sex, they invite the parents to dinner to break the news, about wanting to get married. The parents show up, realize their kids have fallen in love and want to get married!!! Oh now that is a wierd situation to have to confront.

Maybe incest taboo is better understood as a general guideline that works about 99.999999% of the time. Nature throws us these interestingly strange curves though.

 

[Vouthon]

Why are you apparently against adult, consensual, safe incest? Just wondering.

.

Although the question was not directed towards me, I am morally opposed to even non-reproductive incest.

I explained in a prior post why but I would like to expand: it also goes against the love and respect we should owe to those with whom we were raised (presuming this was the case).

Some relationships simply shouldn't be sexualized. Human beings, since time immemorial, have cherished and celebrated the asexual love and support network provided by close kin.

It is a beautiful and precious thing to have the chaste companionship and fraternal love of a brother/sister.

Does everything need to be sexualized?

This taboo is near universal. I would suggest that the higher incidence of birth defects and recessive genes resulting from reproductive incest is testament to the fact that siblings are not sexually compatible, whether they in fact produce offspring or not.

Also, check out my prior argument about the danger of excessive tribalism and closed communities. We should aspire to widen our social relations, gene pool and partnerships - not restrict them to a tiny self-contained family tribe. That is narrow-minded and not a social good IMHO.

Would we recommend incest on an industrial, societal-wide scale? Of course not. The same cannot be said for exogamy, which is why it is superior.

Consensual, non-reproductive incest is simply less bad (perhaps significantly so) than reproductive and certainly than abusive incest. But it is not good or ideal.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Family roles have a presumed dependence and association. You are likely forced to be around your sibling and in some instances your close extended family. If your sibling is older or more capable it is common to see dependence here as well. Family members can use that association to groom or coerce a relationship.

Right, but there are other kinds of relationships where one can arguably presume dependence/power differentials, e.g. boss-employee relationships, and there is a certain kind of dependence and association involved in many sexual relationships not prohibited by law, e.g. lawful marriage, where there is then the potential for abuse/coercion/rape. Yet we do not typically legislate against boss-employee relationships (at least, I am not aware of any such legislation), even if companies/organisations may sometimes have their own internal rules on such liaisons. And we do not prohibit sexual relations in e.g. a marital context on the grounds that it is possible that those sexual relations are coerced.

 

[Skwim]

Although the question was not directed towards me, I am morally opposed to even non-reproductive incest.

Okay.

I explained in a prior post why but I would like to expand: it also goes against the love and respect we should owe to those with whom we were raised (presuming this was the case).

Just how does it go against the love and respect we should owe to those with whom we were raised?

Some relationships simply shouldn't be sexualized. Human beings, since time immemorial, have cherished and celebrated the asexual love and support network provided by close kin.

Well, your "shouldn't" is going to have a heck of a lot more support than your opinion that we "cherish and celebrate" asexual love and support network provided by close kin.

Gotta do a lot better than this, Vouthon.

It is a beautiful and precious thing to have the chaste companionship and fraternal love of a brother/sister.

Again, your unsubstantiated opinion. In any case, So what?

Does everything need to be sexualized?

No it doesn't, which is why everything isn't.

.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Why are you defending incest? Just wondering.

I find it interesting to explore the rationale behind subjects considered taboo by many, not least where the reasons given could also be levelled against other kinds of behaviours/practices which are not sanctioned at all, to the same degree or in the same way.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Can be harmful to the children today since genetic problems are amplified Those problems are less when married someone more distantly related

Not clear if you mean marrying a close relative or sexual abuse of a sibling. Both very different issues.

Well, I've left the definitional question deliberately open. But I certainly agree that there is a fundamental difference between marrying a close relative (assuming that the marriage is mutually consensual) and sexual abuse of a sibling or other family member.

 

[Vouthon]

Well, your "shouldn't" is going to have a heck of a lot more support than your opinion that we "cherish and celebrate" asexual love and support network provided by close kin.

Gotta do a lot better than this, Vouthon.

Chaste love between close genetic relatives provides a stability and durability distinct from that of relationships founded upon sexual attraction, which can wane and peter out. Just look at the divorce rate.

Can you imagine divorcing your own brother or sister?

Incest allows for disruptive sexual interaction between parents and their offspring as well as between siblings. This fundamentally damages the nurturing support network function of family, which should not be contingent upon the whims of sexual desire or sexual relationships.

When people get divorced, they often turn for solace to their families - close genetic relatives. But if your married to your brother or father, that obviously wouldn't be an option!

And it is statistically evidenced that incestuous relationships are far more prone to abuse than conventional heterosexual or homosexual relationships, and help to entrench patriarchal authority (i.e. fathers over daughters, brothers over sisters).

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I don't believe incest can occur with genuine consent, with the possible exceptions of those rare cases where people find out they're related only after they've started a relationship.

Why?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Are we talking minor and adult? That isn't incest it's much worse it's abuse of power in the worst way. That's a problem.

Or are you talking adult with adult like woody Allen and his wife. They don't practice incest literally but that is, an interesting relationship none the less.

There is also The case of a brother and a sister separated at birth with the parents divorcing each taking custody of a child. The brother and sister meet at college, fall in love, have sex, they invite the parents to dinner to break the news, about wanting to get married. The parents show up, realize their kids have fallen in love and want to get married!!! Oh now that is a wierd situation to have to confront.

Maybe incest taboo is better understood as a general guideline that works about 99.999999% of the time. Nature throws us these interestingly strange curves though.

I'm not talking about child abuse, no. There are all sorts of ways in which incestuous sexual relations won't result in the birth of any children. Examples include same-sex sexual relations, the various kinds of methods for rendering someone effectively infertile/sterile, not to mention the numerous forms of sexual relation which don't involve vaginal sexual intercourse (though one could argue in the latter case that these might increase the chances of vaginal sexual intercourse occurring, and thus the chance of conception and ultimately birth of children).

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Also, check out my prior argument about the danger of excessive tribalism and closed communities. We should aspire to widen our social relations, gene pool and partnerships - not restrict them to a tiny self-contained family tribe

I have a lot of sympathy for this kind of argument. But one could argue that one can do both, i.e. engage in sexual relations which widen our social relations etc. and at the same time engage in certain kinds of incestuous sexual relations.

 

[Skwim]

Chaste love between close genetic relatives provides a stability and durability distinct from that of relationships founded upon sexual attraction, which can wane and peter out.

And again, your opinion is no better than that of the guy down the street. You need evidence, Vouthon. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E !

Can you imagine divorcing your own brother or sister?

What I can or cannot imagine is beside the point.

.

 

[Curious George]

Right, but there are other kinds of relationships where one can arguably presume dependence/power differentials, e.g. boss-employee relationships, and there is a certain kind of dependence and association involved in many sexual relationships not prohibited by law, e.g. lawful marriage, where there is then the potential for abuse/coercion/rape. Yet we do not typically legislate against boss-employee relationships (at least, I am not aware of any such legislation), even if companies/organisations may sometimes have their own internal rules on such liaisons. And we do not prohibit sexual relations in e.g. a marital context on the grounds that it is possible that those sexual relations are coerced.

I already addressed employment relationships and while there can be a presumption, it takes too much entanglement in order to ascertain that there is a boss employee relationship in the first place and then even more to regulate it. Absolutely, marriage itself has long stood as a structure that not only allowed for rape/coercion/abuse but also condoned it.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I already addressed employment relationships and while there can be a presumption, it takes too much entanglement in order to ascertain that there is a boss employee relationship in the first place and then even more to regulate it.

So your argument against legislating against boss-employee-type sexual relationships essentially boils down to it being too difficult to implement such regulation in practice?

Absolutely, marriage itself has long stood as a structure that not only allowed for rape/coercion/abuse but also condoned it

Are you saying marriage should be banned too?

 

[Vouthon]

And again, your opinion is no better than that of the guy down the street. You need evidence, Vouthon. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E !


What I can or cannot imagine is beside the point.

.

I invite you to read up on "family-disruption theory", often associated with Bronislaw Malinowski (regarded as one of the most influential anthropologists and ethnographers of the 20th century).

Most sociologists and anthropologists explain incest avoidance by means of one or another type of functionalist argument, such as the so-called family disruption theory (whereas evolutionary biologists would explain it on the basis of natural selection favouring variation to avoid genetic bottleneck and recessive alleles).

Basically, sexual competition among family members would foment so much rivalry, jealousy and tension that the nuclear family could not function as an effective unit, which since our hunter-gatherer past has been essential for cooperative survival. The unity of each family was necessary to protect it against wild animals and to carry out large hunts.

Because the family must function effectively for society to survive and indeed to thrive, society has to curtail competition within the family. The familial incest taboo is thus imposed to keep the family intact.

Incest taboos therefore have high cultural fitness because of their advantages in preventing competition and disruptive relations between family members.

As a result of this and the concurrent recognition that inbreeding led to poorer health plus defects in offspring (again bad for survival), almost all independent clusters of humans spread out on the earth enforced an incest taboo.

And they were right to do so, given that incest is neither a biological nor social good.

 

[Curious George]

So your argument against legislating against boss-employee-type sexual relationships essentially boils down to it being too difficult to implement such regulation in practice?

No, too intrusive of a regulation.

Are you saying marriage should be banned too?

No.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

No, too intrusive of a regulation.

But is it not also too intrusive to enforce incest-based legislation?

No.

So why then should incest be banned but marriage not (given that you agree that there is much potential for abuse/coercion to occur within marriage as within families)?

 

[Vouthon]

I would argue, echoing Levi-Strauss, that the prohibition of incest was the commencement of "the social" and of cultural life.

Without it, we'd have no society or civilization because the incest taboo was required to solidify, broaden and widen the kinship of individuals and groups of people inside society or across different societies.

If one cannot marry his own siblings or relatives, he or she has to seek a marriage partner from outside his or her group. As a consequence, the kinship of one group extends to another group.

I maintain that this is socially advantageous and more culturally fit than inbreeding or sexual partnership with kin.