Vairocana Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Friend posted this on facebook: http://bigthink.com/...nsensual-incest Just stay with me for a second. I know it's an uncomfortable topic for most, but what is our problem with incest? "It isn't consensual"- True, it often isn't consensual, which means it can sometimes be categorized along with other types of sexual abuse. But I don't think our primary objection to incest is that it might not be consensual. After all, our immediate reaction is to be grossed out by incest because we view it as weird and unnatural, not outraged by the implications concerning a lack of consent. Plus, we view consensual incestuous relationships to be just as objectionable as consensual ones, and perhaps even more so. And couldn't we create a law that made a distinction between sexual abuse and consensual incest? All of this brings me to the second objection... "It's weird and unnatural"- This is in spite of the fact that historically, incest actually isn't all that unnatural, in the sense that it has happened for as long as we've had written record, was fairly normative, and was often not socially condemned. Incest was often a strategy in preserving political power through the perceived purity of family lines. Incest stories also show up in ancient polytheistic religious texts, in which gods often had sex with their direct family members. The Bible (you may have heard of it) contains record of several incestuous relationships,the majority of them uncondemned. And incest has been showing up in literature for as long as there has been literature (Ovid, anyone?), indicating that it has always been part of the collective social consciousness, regardless of how it's been viewed. In fact, until about 200 years ago, many countries didn't have any laws against incest. "It causes deformities and other problems"- Well first of all, not really. It actually takes several generations of closely related inbreeding to produce problems (this was often the case of the aforementioned royal lines, who after several generations of intermarrying, started dying off rapidly due to immune deficiencies, effectively destabilizing the intended use of incest as a political strategy to preserve family power). Generally, even between brothers and sisters, their parents provided enough gene variety to make the risk of problems pretty minimal, if slightly elevated. But even if the risk of problems was much higher, would this be a reason to ban incest? After all, we don't prohibit adults with higher-risk genetics from having sexual relationships or reproducing. So this isn't it either. I keep coming back to objection #2. Incest just weirds us out for some reason, regardless of the fact that it's been a part of human sexual practice forever. We have a moral objection to it, which means basically nothing, and means even less when you consider how many religious texts have examples of consensual incestuous relationships. Reading this story about a truly consensual incestuous relationship made me wonder- is the fact that something gives us a relativistic moral wiggins a good enough reason to have laws against it? Probably not. I'm sure these brothers would agree with me. I think she raises some valid points. It still gives me the weebies, but is that a valid reason to stop consenting adults from pursuing love? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CDDRodrigo Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Wincest. I have nothing against it as long as both parts are aware of the risks should they go banging mode and/or they have no objections as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John A. Zoidberg Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 It's one of those "live and let live" things.I wouldn't personally pursue an incestuous relationship. On the other hand, I wouldn't find out someone is and cut all ties with them. I often live by the ideology of tolerance in most regards, so I have no personal problems with it. It's like homosexuality. If a person is in love with someone, I am in no place to tell them whether or not they're allowed to love that person. That would be more wrong than them having that relationship in the first place*. *I have nothing against the ideology of homosexuality to the point of saying it's "wrong," I'm an open supporter of the community. It just came to mind as the best example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
·Toot Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 [spoiler=Hm...]Gross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Max Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I never understood the problem with Incest myself. We all have the same Sexual Organs and we are destined to Breed anyway :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I think she raises some valid points. I disagree. Her portrayal of those opposed to incest as having arguments as ludicrous as "It isn't consensual" and "It's weird and unnatural" suggests that she isn't actually concerned with why people object to incest, but rather with concluding that we are irrational in doing so. These conclusions cannot be made without giving the opposite perspective something that at the very least resembles a fair trial. The anti-incest argument that most resonated with me was that of marriage being a form of bridge between different tribes/families. Now, initially this might come across as rather shallow when considering that marriage should be solely focused on the married couple and their love for each other, but the implications when you take it a step or two further are pretty drastic and illuminating. Assuming that marriage does indeed function as a bridge between different tribes, a given tribe that married only within itself would lack the bridges that would help it understand the ways of other tribes. Inevitably, this lack of understanding of other tribes would manifest itself as alienation, not to mention fewer numbers and much less exposure to different cultures. The impacts aren't necessarily that long-term either. What, you would like to marry your sister? What is the matter with you anyway? Don't you want a brother-in-law? Don't you realize that if you marry another man's sister and another man marries your sister, you will have at least two brothers-in-law, while if you marry your own sister you will have none? With whom will you hunt, with whom will you garden, who will you visit? As this quote demonstrates, one marriage between people of different families has immediate benefits that a marriage within the same family does not. With incestuous marriage the family does not expand, and the couple has far fewer associates (their extended family would typically be about half of what it otherwise would be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindingTheEverlight Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 In a biblical sense, with Adam and Eve, just that from the start proves that incest isn't anything different. I know society frowns upon it today, but think of the story of Noah, there must have been incest there as well being that everyone else had died off. I find nothing wrong with incest, I would never do it though. I couldn't imagine; my sisters, my mother, my future daughter(s), my cousins; It's disgusting to me, but if it's consensual, more power to you. It's their life choice, not mine. Note that I am an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miror B Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I disagree. Her portrayal of those opposed to incest as having arguments as ludicrous as "It isn't consensual" and "It's weird and unnatural" suggests that she isn't actually concerned with why people object to incest, but rather with concluding that we are irrational in doing so. These conclusions cannot be made without giving the opposite perspective something that at the very least resembles a fair trial. The anti-incest argument that most resonated with me was that of marriage being a form of bridge between different tribes/families. Now, initially this might come across as rather shallow when considering that marriage should be solely focused on the married couple and their love for each other, but the implications when you take it a step or two further are pretty drastic and illuminating. Assuming that marriage does indeed function as a bridge between different tribes, a given tribe that married only within itself would lack the bridges that would help it understand the ways of other tribes. Inevitably, this lack of understanding of other tribes would manifest itself as alienation, not to mention fewer numbers and much less exposure to different cultures. The impacts aren't necessarily that long-term either. As this quote demonstrates, one marriage between people of different families has immediate benefits that a marriage within the same family does not. With incestuous marriage the family does not expand, and the couple has far fewer associates (their extended family would typically be about half of what it otherwise would be). Just trying to be sure, but your only argument is that it doesn't expand the family? Please let me know if I missed something because I wanna address your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CinnamonStar Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 It's a socio-cultural thing.No one in my family is biologically my family, yet sleeping with any of them...doesn't appeal to me that much.=S Well, it's another one of these issues I have mild feelings for. I'm not really interested into getting people's sex lives put on the table, so I rather support decriminalizing it (unless it implies some grandpa doing his 5-year-old grandchild, but that's another issue). I don't mind it personally, but I'm not going to raise any bus campaigns in favor of it or against it either. [spoiler=However]People pulling the "old venerable population did things for quite a long time --> things can only be right since being an old venerable population doesn't hold any flaws" argument make me laugh sometimes. A bit. In the ancient polytheistic texts your friend is referring to, you also have gods eating their own family alive. Yet these things weren't really the norm, even if mightly religious texts mention them. We also have yet to find any trustable records about how common some things were in the general population and outside of gods, royalty and keeping the political power in the family. Of course that's not a reason to ban something, just because it was or was not done in earlier times. But some of her arguments are a little bit off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 In a procreative sense it's fairly unhealthy but outside of that, Live and let live. Not my problem. so I rather support decriminalizing it It's illegal?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonk Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Eh, I just let bygones be bygones. If they don't bother me in any way, then why should I bother them in any way? However, it would be incredibly awkward if I was in a situation in where a family member is attracted to me. Good thing that situation will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Βyakuya Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 It's quite weird, but it depends on the pairing. I don't exactly support this, but at least it's not as hated than homosexual pairing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THROWDOWN Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I never understood the problem with Incest myself. We all have the same Sexual Organs and we are destined to Breed anyway :/IMO, there are 2 things wrong with that. Other than the blatant fact that reproduction with someone who is biologically related to you can produce deformed offspring, you are also saying that all of our destinies is to breed, which I just don't agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raine Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 As much as I would live to support any pairing of two individuals who mutually love each other no matter the circumstances... would we consider the rights of a child that would have significantly increased risk of birth defects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I personally see nothing wrong with incest. Also, basic human rights means that no two people should be stopped from committing it as a consensual act, so I don't see why anyone really cares about it. It's not like everyone and their mother is doing it. (That was a terrible pun and I should be shot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 If both parties love each other in that sense, let 'em go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest .Rai Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Well, I'd probably say I have nothing against homosexual incest, because there is basically no risk of having a baby. Regarding heterosexual incest, I also have nothing against it, but it's probably best that both people involved are 100% aware of any genetic deformations from having possible babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THROWDOWN Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Regarding heterosexual incest, I also have nothing against it, but it's probably best that both people involved are 100% aware of any genetic deformations from having possible babies.Because the baby won't get bullied for having blood-related parents as well as having deformations when he/she goes to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dragon Sage Ω Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Because the baby won't get bullied for having blood-related parents as well as having deformations when he/she goes to school.He/she just said that the parents should be aware of it and consider.Likewise, this argument can be used for babies with Downs Syndrome, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THROWDOWN Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 He/she just said that the parents should be aware of it and consider.Likewise, this argument can be used for babies with Downs Syndrome, etc.What I'm trying to say is that the baby has no say in the matter, that being the case it's not ethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dragon Sage Ω Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 What I'm trying to say is that the baby has no say in the matter, that being the case it's not ethical.There are a lot of different reasons people are being bullied. In that case, is breeding unethical if the offspring has the slightest chance of becoming obese, having sight problems and/or mental and/or physical disabilities? Because it wasn't done with the child's consent? How about homosexual couples adopting babies? Is that unethical as well?And then, why should we even breed if people exist who cannot even look past their own noses and bully people who are slightly different than them?If I am misreading your post or if I sound rude, I do apologize.And I feel like I'm going off topic with this small debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vairocana Posted March 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I disagree. Her portrayal of those opposed to incest as having arguments as ludicrous as "It isn't consensual" and "It's weird and unnatural" suggests that she isn't actually concerned with why people object to incest, but rather with concluding that we are irrational in doing so. These conclusions cannot be made without giving the opposite perspective something that at the very least resembles a fair trial. The anti-incest argument that most resonated with me was that of marriage being a form of bridge between different tribes/families. Now, initially this might come across as rather shallow when considering that marriage should be solely focused on the married couple and their love for each other, but the implications when you take it a step or two further are pretty drastic and illuminating. Assuming that marriage does indeed function as a bridge between different tribes, a given tribe that married only within itself would lack the bridges that would help it understand the ways of other tribes. Inevitably, this lack of understanding of other tribes would manifest itself as alienation, not to mention fewer numbers and much less exposure to different cultures. The impacts aren't necessarily that long-term either. As this quote demonstrates, one marriage between people of different families has immediate benefits that a marriage within the same family does not. With incestuous marriage the family does not expand, and the couple has far fewer associates (their extended family would typically be about half of what it otherwise would be). I believe she was referring to our modern-day reasons for being opposed to incest. When humans lived in tribal societies, sure, marriage was a great way to expand and bridge connections. But we live in a much more interconnected society now (where the closest thing I would consider to a "tribe" is the culture you grew up in...but Americans marry other Americans and French people marry other French people, etc etc), so that line of thought no longer applies. What are our modern-day objections to incest, other than that it creeps us out? It's a socio-cultural thing.No one in my family is biologically my family, yet sleeping with any of them...doesn't appeal to me that much.=S Well, it's another one of these issues I have mild feelings for. I'm not really interested into getting people's sex lives put on the table, so I rather support decriminalizing it (unless it implies some grandpa doing his 5-year-old grandchild, but that's another issue). I don't mind it personally, but I'm not going to raise any bus campaigns in favor of it or against it either. [spoiler=However]People pulling the "old venerable population did things for quite a long time --> things can only be right since being an old venerable population doesn't hold any flaws" argument make me laugh sometimes. A bit. In the ancient polytheistic texts your friend is referring to, you also have gods eating their own family alive. Yet these things weren't really the norm, even if mightly religious texts mention them. We also have yet to find any trustable records about how common some things were in the general population and outside of gods, royalty and keeping the political power in the family. Of course that's not a reason to ban something, just because it was or was not done in earlier times. But some of her arguments are a little bit off. I believe the reason she brought up ancient civilizations was to counterpoint the argument "well, it's always been like this. Incest is gross." We have documentation of plenty of societies where incest was not considered abnormal or immoral. As much as I would live to support any pairing of two individuals who mutually love each other no matter the circumstances... would we consider the rights of a child that would have significantly increased risk of birth defects? The OP addresses this point. Deformities usually only occur after several generations of inter-breeding (ala royal families), so unless it's the brother and sister of a brother and sister of a brother and sister, the chances of deformity aren't that high. She also points out that we don't have laws barring non-incestual couples with high-risk genetics from having children, why would this be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John A. Zoidberg Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Erm.Throwdown, children don't have a say in whether or not to be born no matter what. Who the parents are is irrelevant to the infant's free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeal Ascendant Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I guess if people understand the implications of it then fine, go for it, but it's a bit hard for me to get past the grossness :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raine Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I guess if people understand the implications of it then fine, go for it, but it's a bit hard for me to get past the grossness :S HOLD ON! Disapproving of something personally but still understanding it and accepting if others do it? ...what's the word, tolerance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.