Incest: why is it such a big deal?

[mountain_tiger]

I don't really understand what the big deal about it is. I mean, you shouldn't put such limitations on true love, surely? Obviously if it involves someone underage or ****, then that's really bad, because **** is one of the worst crimes you can commit sort of murder IMO, and if they're underage it's basically **** anyway.

But if it's between two consentual adults, surely it's no one else's business? No one gets hurt in the transaction, so why should it be illegal? Laws are there to help people and make society better, so what good is having a law which penalises people that aren't causing anybody any harm? It's like sending a guy to jail just because he prefers peanuts to crisps. This can also be applied to BDSM.

Oh, and for the record, I don't fancy any members of my family.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well, along the lines of bettering society, anti-incest laws ensure genetic variety, right?

But in all seriousness, it seems to me like incest is one of those charges that are usually just tacked onto child abuse cases; I don't think many authorities actively seek out and prosecute cases of legal-age, consentual incest. I could be wrong about that though.

 

[RDK]

Incest is not good for the gene pool, especially in small populations. Recessive genes that produce birth defects can become more frequent due to incest, resulting in a higher rate of expression.

TLDR versoin; while there's nothing morally wrong with consensual incest, it increases the chances of your babies being deformed.

 

[Teran]

Well they are potential harmful to people because the children that could be produced by such activity are at an extreme risk of deformity and illness, due to the shallowness of the genepool of copulating family members.

Bad genes are usually kept repressed in a diverse genepool, but when two related individuals have a child, there's a greatly heightened chance of bad genes being expressed, more so if they're very closely related.

Now if we're talking homosexual incest well... I guess there's no risk of that happening.

You must understand that an anti-incest mentality is usually present in all animals, as we will not seek relations with related individuals unless the situation in terms of mating are extremely dire.

I'd say it's just biologically the wrong thing to do, since you're just going to create a bloodline with a lot of faults that will die off quickly.

As for homosexual incest, that's not going to cause said problem, but well it's just that society finds it repugnant. We have an inbuilt disgust mechanism for a lot of things because of the moral teachings ingrained in our societies from Abrahamic religions etc etc.

EDIT: Lolninja'd

 

[Aesir]

Well lets assume that the two consenting adults realize this and have no desire to have babies, instead they only enjoy the causal hook up. IE: Use of Pills, Condoms, or either of the two adults could be sterile.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

TLDR versoin; while there's nothing morally wrong with consensual incest, it increases the chances of your babies being deformed.

Is it fair on the children of incestuous parents? I think not. They are born with a higher rate of birth defects, because their parents are related.

I don't know, but it seems to me that it's rather immoral to allow children to be born with higher rates of birth defects just because to related parents want to have children.

It's morally fine to allow consensual incest, so long as it doesn't produce children.

 

[Aesir]

Is it fair on the children of incestuous parents? I think not. They are born with a higher rate of birth defects, because their parents are related.

I don't know, but it seems to me that it's rather immoral to allow children to be born with higher rates of birth defects just because to related parents want to have children.

It's morally fine to allow consensual incest, so long as it doesn't produce children.

Unless I'm mistaken, birth defects associated with incest usually don't develop unless there's generation after generation of incestuous relationships. (I think the number is actually 15 generations.)

Also I would suggest you read RDK's post again. Because he says you shouldn't do it because of birth defects. However I have pointed out, what if contraceptives are used, is it still immoral? (this question isn't directed at you, just the thread.)

 

[Sucumbio]

Well lets assume that the two consenting adults realize this and have no desire to have babies, instead they only enjoy the causal hook up. IE: Use of Pills, Condoms, or either of the two adults could be sterile.

In this case I'd say, "sure! why not?" It's happened before, lol People hooking up who later find out they're related, and... still continue hooking up. Granted the knowledge of knowing you're related kinda plays in the head a bit, and if you're still like F yah cool and aren't immediately disgusted, then either 1.) You're not -too- closely related for your own biological tastes (in the capacity Teran mentioned) 2.) You're perverted (in the social sense).

@ OP: It's illegal to ensure that shortcomings on the genetic level aren't expressed. I mean this in the sense, that not ALL people IMMEDIATELY want to vomit when thinking about sleeping w/a member of their close family (brothers, sisters, mom/dad, grandparents). This being the case, to avoid genetic problems in offspring, laws are still enforced for the purpose of making sure that even IF you may think your sister's hot, you are less likely to break the law of the land, as you are to break the laws of morality (whatever those may be for you.) This is however the modern norm... original such laws were far more rooted in religious contexts. There was plenty of incest in Greek mythology for example, but monotheism all but sought out to do exactly the opposite of any such teachings, like bestiality for example.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Unless I'm mistaken, birth defects associated with incest usually don't develop unless there's generation after generation of incestuous relationships. (I think the number is actually 15 generations.)

I think you may be mistaken, according to this wikipedia article here inbreeding (a result of incest between close relatives that produces children) produces a number of health defects for the first generation children.

Also I would suggest you read RDK's post again. Because he says you shouldn't do it because of birth defects. However I have pointed out, what if contraceptives are used, is it still immoral? (this question isn't directed at you, just the thread.)

As I said earlier if the relationship doesn't result in children, it is morally fine IMO. In the same sort of way a homosexual relationship is. It doesn't hurt anyone and it doesn't harm society in any real way.

Moral Relativism FTW!

 

[Aesir]

I think you may be mistaken, according to this wikipedia article here inbreeding (a result of incest between close relatives that produces children) produces a number of health defects for the first generation children.

Using straight wikipedia pages is frowned upon.

However from your link;

Inbreeding is a genetic term that refers to reproduction as a result of the mating of two animals which are genetically related to each other. If the relationship is a close one or it is practiced repeatedly, inbreeding can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits.

I'm not saying it's safe and we should all have babies with our siblings. But the idea that if you have a child with a close relative that you're going to have offspring with screwed up genes isn't completely true. Because it depends on both parties genes. There is a higher chance but as shown in your own link they have to be closely related or it has to be done through many generations.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But the idea that if you have a child with a close relative that you're going to have offspring with screwed up genes isn't completely true. Because it depends on both parties genes. There is a higher chance but as shown in your own link they have to be closely related or it has to be done through many generations.

Exactly my point. Close relationship incest results in inbreeding if children arise. Inbreeding results in higher rates of genetic disorders. This is unfair on the children resulting from this relationship, IMO.

Also how close is the relationship we are talking about here? I'm not sure, because neither of us have made it clear. The sort of incest I'm referring to is Brother to Sister, Son to Mother etc. I get the feeling your talking about a much more distant relationship, but I'm unsure of that. Just to make sure we're on all the same wavelength, I'd like you and mountain tiger to clarify how close the incest is because it hasn't really been made clear.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Why, oh why do you like to make threads about this, MT?

The point is simple: the general public just downright looks down on it. If there weren't any laws about this put into place, they eventually would by the community, or, mind you, the majority of it, banding together and demanding a law. People just think it's not natural, and that's why it's a big deal.

 

[RDK]

Why, oh why do you like to make threads about this, MT?

The point is simple: the general public just downright looks down on it. If there weren't any laws about this put into place, they eventually would by the community, or, mind you, the majority of it, banding together and demanding a law. People just think it's not natural, and that's why it's a big deal.

Is something not being "natural" a reason to look down upon it?

Humans flying is unnatural. Should be ban airplanes?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Is something not being "natural" a reason to look down upon it?

Humans flying is unnatural. Should be ban airplanes?

Great Point. Additionally we look down on natural practices such as homosexuality.

We probably look down on incest because of an evolutionary adaptation, that is beneficial makes us inclined to do so. However this evolved before there was proper contraception, so any incestuous relationship would have a chance of producing offspring. These offspring are more likely to have health defects. We must have evolved to look down on any sort of incest, because it ruled out the possibility of inbreeding and the genetic diseases it brings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there is no real reason we think incest is bad other than the aforementioned reason.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Is something not being "natural" a reason to look down upon it?

Humans flying is unnatural. Should be ban airplanes?

I don't know, why don't you ask the general public? I never said I look down on in. In fact, I couldn't really care less. It's their buisiness, not mine. But many people don't think that way. Ask many of them, and they will say that "yes, incest is 'bad'". People will have different reasons, too. Science jocks might say it isn't healthy for the human gene pool. Religious zealots might say God condemns it. Other might say it's just plain disgusting. And you can't really change their opinions if they're adults. Our society just has a tendency to frown upon things it doesn't deem "right".

 

[Spire]

America is a very puritanistic country. The ideals of the Puritans pervade the very foundations of who we are, and whether you follow any religion or not, we've mostly all grown with these sorts of mannerisms and views around us. When you were young and your parents or teachers choose not to condone you for mistakes, rather punishing you (say you accidentally said or did something that would be considered sexually inappropriate by adults to another) for even the slightest of actions, you learn, "this is bad and I should not do it". As you continue to develop, you are time and again punished for these types of actions, though you realize that the slight of word in the 1st grade that put you in time-out is viewed more abstractly and on a broader scale by those who govern older age groups because naturally, your peers and yourself know more by that level. By the time you are a teen, you've probably learned of **** and how horrid an act it is -- well, how it is perceived in this country. You also learn of the types of punishments people receive for it. They are not tried by their parents or teachers, rather by the judicial court and rather than face some time in the corner, they face some time in the penitentiary.

So while incest may not land you in jail, we are taught even in our youngest years to not meddle in such fields. "Samantha, don't kiss your brother like that!" As a child, you don't think of sex, but the adults surely are, and it's all based on fear. They don't want their child to grow up to perform incestuous acts with their family members. It isn't pure. It's bad, it's black, it's wrong, not white.

 

[Dorsey]

You are raised with your brothers and sisters, and they take a certain psychological role to you throughout childhood; a non-intimate one. So, by gaining an incestual partnership one terminates the rightful, psychological role one's brother/sister once had, which in itself can present psychological problems. This, when factoring in the earth's vast population(opportunities for intimate relationships), leads me to believe that anyone who is under the impression that they have found his/her true love within their family is a sheltered and misguided individual. It's also important to consider that the two involved do so knowing that it's a psychological and social oddity.

As for the circumstantial situation suggesting completely consensual true love between brother and sister, yeah, you _could_ be right in that situation. But I think it's silly to suggest the small probability of that happening when this scenario is just as plausible: A brother and sister feel that they are in love, however one has a change of heart later influenced by the fact that her relationship is an oddity to human psychology and social norms; more easily put 'against human nature'. Allow me to reiterate that the only point I'm making with this scenario is to discredit the likelihood of a proper incestual partnership by presenting an equally plausible scenario, in turn demonstrating it's failure.

So in short, no, there is nothing wrong with a true, proper, consensual incestual relationship. However, using this truth as justification for why society shouldn't have an ill opinion on the topic is wrong. There is a reason why incest isn't a part of social norms, and the miniscule possibility of true consensual, incestual love existing does not contradict it.

 

[-ACE-]

Unless I'm mistaken, birth defects associated with incest usually don't develop unless there's generation after generation of incestuous relationships. (I think the number is actually 15 generations.)

Is this a serious post? There is no magic number of generations of incestuous relationships that causes birth defects in offspring. In comparison to the general population, members of the same immediate family have a high probability of possessing recessive alleles for an undesirable trait. Due to the fact that they share a common ancestor, siblings have a much higher chance of being carriers (heterozygous) for such a trait. When 2 heterozygotes mate there is simply a much higher chance for a harmful recessive allele to be expressed (homozygous).

In theory, it is also possible that absolutely no birth defects will emerge after an infinite amount of generations of inbreeding. This is unlikely, but it all depends on the parents' genetics.