What is actually wrong with incest?

pharmaton

Jernal wrote: »

Which it makes it moral or immoral why?

I didn't say it had aything to do with morality...three times. This is will be my fourth ....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85246746&postcount=227

Turtwig

pharmaton wrote: »

I didn't say it had aything to do with morality...three times. This is will be my fourth ....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85246746&postcount=227

Now I'm very confused. Are you saying there's something wrong with incest or not?
Or were you just pointing out the supposed evolutionary origins of it. That's probably very interesting but I'm failing to see how it's relevant to whether incest is right or wrong.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But we do not legislate for friends embarking upon sexual relationships.

.

The dynamics of friendships is entirely different to that of siblings. Your point is moot and completely disregards every notion the previous poster has put forward to determine the differences.

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

The dynamics of friendships is entirely different to that of siblings. Your point is moot and completely disregards every notion the previous poster has put forward to determine the differences.

The user is employing circular reasoning.

i.e. blood relationships are debarred from sexual action because they exist on a higher plane. They exist on a higher plane because they are blood relationships.

I am proposing that pressure to retain a relationship can be applied in any context.

I am also suggesting that it is not uncommon for individuals to reject their family's wishes when embarking on or disembarking from sexual or marital relationships.

UCDVet

pharmaton wrote: »

which ones would that be.
not if your personal beliefs are biased and set out to achieve a particular agenda. Btw I didn't attack you personally, I'm questioning why you believe that of all the posts here, none of them..not one..has shed any light on the issue for you and you continue to end each post with a comparison to homosexuality.



try this one ...or maybe this one

Ireland - for one. We still actively enforce laws against it and we still prosecute people for doing it.

England - for another.

But, to be honest, whether or not something is 'popular' speaks little to the concept of right and wrong.

Anyway - I find your first linked to post uncompelling. Peoples 'ick' reaction to most everything is based on culture. In ancient Greece it was totally okay and not 'icky' to have gay sex with a young boy. It's very easy to claim that the majority view is the 'natural' and 'right' way of looking at things, and the same argument is been applied to interracial couples and homosexuals. If the 'ick' response where innate, as your link claims, then how do you explain people who consensually want to have incestuous sex?

Back in the day, the considered homosexuality a mental disorder....and it sounds like that post is claiming the same thing.

It certainly doesn't give any reason why it should be *illegal* to do so, even if it is a disorder. Washing my hands five times in a row is a disorder, but it's not punishable by life in prison.

The second post the guy is making all sorts of claims I don't agree with, but even his argument is based on a premise of 'In the case of incest between relatives who have grown up together' - but the LAW doesn't say that. The law makes all incest illegal.

You can related to someone without ANY family relationship - and it is a crime. And you can be raised from birth with someone without ANY bond of blood or marriage and the law lets you have sex with them.

So, whatever his argument was, it is quite irrelevant from the legal situation found in Ireland and other countries.

Finally - regardless of whatever family ties someone has - while it might be difficult or complicated....so what? LOTS of things that are completely legal are difficult on families....why does incest get treated so differently than divorce, separation, remarriage, adoption, etc?

pharmaton

Jernal wrote: »

Now I'm very confused. Are you saying there's something wrong with incest or not?
Or were you just pointing out the supposed evolutionary origins of it. That's probably very interesting but I'm failing to see how it's relevant to whether incest is right or wrong.

I'm saying the ick factor reaction to it is natural considering we've evolved to navigate away from it.
In certain situations, I have no problem with cases where siblings never knew each other growing up and met each other in later life and are instinctively attracted to one another. I do not feel these people should be punished or made to feel like they have comitted a crime.
On the other hand I'm not supportive of incestuous relationships, I would echo the factors outlined in starlings post earlier, the dynamics of those relationships suggest a lot of difficulties and raise more questions about how freely they are entered into.

pharmaton

UCDVet wrote: »

Ireland - for one. We still actively enforce laws against it and we still prosecute people for doing it.

England - for another.

I asked you to reference societies where the practice of incestuous relationships is popular and you give me Ireland and England. Grand.

But, to be honest, whether or not something is 'popular' speaks little to the concept of right and wrong.

Anyway - I find your first linked to post uncompelling. Peoples 'ick' reaction to most everything is based on culture. In ancient Greece it was totally okay and not 'icky' to have gay sex with a young boy. It's very easy to claim that the majority view is the 'natural' and 'right' way of looking at things, and the same argument is been applied to interracial couples and homosexuals. If the 'ick' response where innate, as your link claims, then how do you explain people who consensually want to have incestuous sex?

Back in the day, the considered homosexuality a mental disorder....and it sounds like that post is claiming the same thing.

I just don't even...

It certainly doesn't give any reason why it should be *illegal* to do so, even if it is a disorder. Washing my hands five times in a row is a disorder, but it's not punishable by life in prison.

The second post the guy is making all sorts of claims I don't agree with, but even his argument is based on a premise of 'In the case of incest between relatives who have grown up together' - but the LAW doesn't say that. The law makes all incest illegal.

You can related to someone without ANY family relationship - and it is a crime. And you can be raised from birth with someone without ANY bond of blood or marriage and the law lets you have sex with them.

So, whatever his argument was, it is quite irrelevant from the legal situation found in Ireland and other countries.

Finally - regardless of whatever family ties someone has - while it might be difficult or complicated....so what? LOTS of things that are completely legal are difficult on families....why does incest get treated so differently than divorce, separation, remarriage, adoption, etc?

You have gone from asking why it's wrong to why it's illegal. The two are separate issues. Nowhere have I claimed people should be convicted for committing incest, unless that incest is non consensual. The law considers it to be closer to abuse than consent and tbh that is for the courts to decide. There is no doubt in my mind however that many of those cases are.


Heres what I do know though, homosexuality is not incest.

UCDVet

pharmaton wrote: »

I asked you to reference societies where the practice of incestuous relationships is popular and you give me Ireland and England. Grand.
I just don't even...

You have gone from asking why it's wrong to why it's illegal. The two are separate issues. Nowhere have I claimed people should be convicted for committing incest, unless that incest is non consensual. The law considers it to be closer to abuse than consent and tbh that is for the courts to decide. There is no doubt in my mind however that many of those cases are.


Heres what I do know though, homosexuality is not incest.

This isn't going to work - our exact text is available - just scroll back and read it again. You are moving the goal posts.

Seriously - double check...

ME: '...Except lots of societies have and continue to practice it....'
YOU: '...which ones would that be...'
ME: '...Ireland...England...'
YOU: '...I asked you to reference societies where the practice of incestuous relationships is popular...

You never asked me to do that....and I never claimed it was popular.

corktina

no wonder Katie divorced him

pharmaton

UCDVet wrote: »

This isn't going to work - our exact text is available - just scroll back and read it again. You are moving the goal posts.

Seriously - double check...



You never asked me to do that....and I never claimed it was popular.

me: you know why incest is not that common? because the societies which practised are no longer around.
you: Except lots of societies continue to practice it.
me:which ones
you: England and Ireland
me:grand.

now lets do that in context,
me:Humans evolved away from incest because of the deleterious effects of inbreeding on those that didn't.

ok?

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

me:Humans evolved away from incest because of the deleterious effects of inbreeding on those that didn't.

Actually, the genetic effect is stronger in (for example) haemophilia or Huntington's disease. So what's your point about evolution?

I mean, humans arguably evolved to find the ill and the disabled unattractive for similar reasons. Doesn't mean people should be prohibited from procreating with them.

Natural selection is an interesting phenomenon, but it has no bearing on what is 'right' or 'morally correct'.

sydthebeat

How did this tripe make 22 pages....

Turtwig

sydthebeat wrote: »

How did this tripe make 22 pages....

Your maximum posts per page setting is far too low.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually, the genetic effect is stronger in (for example) haemophilia or Huntington's disease. So what's your point about evolution?

I mean, humans arguably evolved to find the ill and the disabled unattractive for similar reasons. Doesn't mean people should be prohibited from procreating with them.

Natural selection is an interesting phenomenon, but it has no bearing on what is 'right' or 'morally correct'.

have you read any of my posts? any of them at all?

LoonyLovegood

Axe Rake wrote: »

Anyone else feeling wincesty?

I'm really hoping this is a reference to a TV show, otherwise I'm completely offbase!

meeeeh

Actually it's not just inbreeding that caused incest taboo. Alliances among families increased their power. Keep it in the family so to speak and you loose whole support network. It's less relevant in modern societies but it is far more complex social issue than homosexuallity and far from being taboo just because of biological issues. It is more likely that non biological, social factors were more decisive in making incest such an universal taboo.

sydthebeat

Jernal wrote: »

Your maximum posts per page setting is far too low.

Phone settings

pharmaton

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually it's not just inbreeding that caused incest taboo. Alliances among families increased their power. Keep it in the family so to speak and you loose whole support network. It's less relevant in modern societies but it is far more complex social issue than homosexuallity and far from being taboo just because of biological issues. It is more likely that non biological, social factors were more decisive in making incest such an universal taboo.

research suggests it is. It (taboo) may be supported outwardly as we see it today but in evolutionary terms society evolved past it.

In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result suggests that the Westermarck effect operates during the period from birth to the age of six.[1]

When proximity during this critical period does not occur — for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another — they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults, according to the hypothesis of genetic sexual attraction. This supports the theory that the populations exhibiting the Westermarck effect became predominant because of the deleterious effects of inbreeding on those that didn't.

[edit] I'm not suggesting those other factors don't apply in the larger scale of things, there just appears to be evidence to support the idea of societies evolving away from it naturally

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

have you read any of my posts? any of them at all?

I can't remember. All I can remember is the one i quoted. Make of that what you will.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I can't remember. All I can remember is the one i quoted. Make of that what you will.

ok, but you're assuming I've taken a moral stance on the discussion. I haven't. I haven't claimed it is right or wrong, I've tried several times to allay the cries of ew and ick...and in turn attempted to discuss the taboo.

meeeeh

pharmaton wrote: »

research suggests it is. It (taboo) may be supported outwardly as we see it today but in evolutionary terms society evolved past it.

[edit] I'm not suggesting those other factors don't apply in the larger scale of things, there just appears to be evidence to support the idea of societies evolving away from it naturally

Westermack is probably a bit outdated concept. Another theory states it has cultural origin.

wrote:

Another school argues that the incest prohibition is a cultural construct which arises as a side effect of a general human preference for group exogamy, which arises because intermarriage between groups construct valuable alliances that improve the ability for both groups to thrive. According to this view the incest taboo is not necessarily a universal, but is likely to arise and become more strict under cultural circumstances that favour exogamy over endogamy, and likely to become more lax under circumstances that favor endogamy. This hypothesis has also achieved some empirical support.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo

Whatever it is, all research points to the fact that it is way to simplistic to compare incest to homosexuallity or even dismiss it as something that is consequence of ick factor.

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But I don't believe anyone is advocating early onset of incest, any more than the onset of any sexual interactions in youth. Like any debate to sexual permissibility, this should only apply to those who are sexually and physically mature.

Nobody here is advocating underage incest Cody, but just like underage sex, underage incest exists, therefore with regard to what's sexually "permissible", if people are already engaging in sexual relations with family members, age of consent laws are fairly far down their list of moral objections to their behaviour.

There should be no automatic assumption of minority of age in respect of incest, because nobody appears to be promoting incest for minors.

Nobody is promoting it, but it's a reality that it happens, and yes Cody, there are people who would do not give any regard to the age of consent laws and would seek to promote incest with minors.

But we do not legislate for friends embarking upon sexual relationships.

There's a world of a difference between sex with friends, and sex with family members.

In fact, it is entirely legal for an adult friend of one's parents, who is co-resident with the family, and whom a young person of 17 years might call 'Uncle' (though there is no biological relationship) embarking upon a relationship with the 'niece' or 'nephew', i.e. the offspring of the family with whom he is friendly. We admit this possibility despite the long term dysfunctions that may arise and strain the family dynamic.

The above example isn't incest though.

The ban on incest is an irrational one, partially because it gives rise to these strange anomalies, and offers no explanation.

There was no incest anomaly in the above example? The participants are not related.

You say this, and then you offer some very legitimate observations on homosexuality, but you don't go on to explain why homosexuality should differ from incest in terms of susceptibility to mental health disease.

Dealing with being gay is one thing. Dealing with the aftermath of an incestuous gay relationship is quite another, and as starling suggested, the power play in an incestuous relationship can lead to a situation where a person may not be gay, but may engage in a homosexual relationship to gain validation from their siblings.

Certainly, we can reduce mental health stress on homosexuals by challenging homophobia. But who is to say we cannot challenge the mental health stress on participants to incest by challenging incest-phobia.

Where would you even start with relationship counselling for an incestuous couple? Which aspect of their relationship would you suggest they work on - the familial one as brother and sister, or the incestuous one as boyfriend and girlfriend?

Yes but the risk must first be established to the extent that there is evidence. The ban on incestuous relationships is an automatic ban.

The risk is established based on evidence gathered after intervention. Then if an established risk is identified, action is taken to protect the individuals involved, either from other people, or just as often from themselves.

Evidence has already established the risks involved in incestuous relationships, that's why the ban is automatic.

pharmaton

meeeeh wrote: »

Westermack is probably a bit outdated concept. Another theory states it has cultural origin.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo

Whatever it is, all research points to the fact that it is way to simplistic to compare incest to homosexuallity or even dismiss it as something that is consequence of ick factor.

The use of social codes of construct is closer to Freudian thinking,

The idea that boys want to sleep with their mothers strikes most men as the silliest thing they have ever heard. Obviously, it did not seem so to Freud, who wrote that as a boy he once had an erotic reaction to watching his mother dressing. But Freud had a wet-nurse, and may not have experienced the early intimacy that would have tipped off his perceptual system that Mrs. Freud was his mother. The Westermarck theory has out-Freuded Freud.
—Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works

although granted, society has no problem propogating the notion once it's been planted.

I just couldn't go down that road in comparison to homosexuality, mostly though because the majority of the outrage (religion, society, law and punishment) in that instance is directed at the male of the species entirely.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

If word play and missing the point were an olympic sport tax, you'd be a shoe-in for the gold medal.

Now you are just getting personal and insulting. Emotional much? Especially given you are the one ignoring the points I am making in favor of linguistic grammar nazi pedantry - which also just happens to be false because the defintiion of the word you are clinging desperately to on wikipedia does not match the dictionaries. The only one involved in word play here is you - and youre not even doing that well. So lets stick to the topic of the thread and not the personal attacks ok?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Intellectually disabled people are precluded from having sex.

Saying it twice does not make it less false. They ARE allowed have sex and they ARE allowed reproduce. The law just dictates they have to be married to do it is all.

And the law does not preclude THEM from having sex either so you are doubly wrong. It precludes US from having sex with them.

The original point which you are retreating from is that we do not mediate peoples right to reproduce based on genetics. We do not say "You are more likely that everyone else to have a deformed or sick child - therefore you should not reproduce. So why anyone feels we suddenly SHOULD start to do so with incest is beyond me and - seemingly - you too.

Which is why I pointed out that this genetics argument does not actually answer the OPs question.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm actually interested in talking about ALL aspects of incest, you're only interested in talking about what suits you.

This is a false and disingenuous outright lie and misrepresentation from you here. I am talking about incest as a whole. I always have been. I have not precluded talking about any part of it.

All I have done - and rightly too - is acknowledge the fact that WITHIN that discussion on "incest" there are several subdivisions of discussions to have. There are vastly different moral discussions to be had between consenting adults siblings having sex - and parents sexually exploiting underage children.

I am all for discussing both - all I did - much to your unexplained chagrin - is acknowledge that there are sub-discussions to be had and that it is worth being aware of the distinctions between them.

What your problem with that is is entirely opaque to me - and seemingly to you too given you have not been able to explain it.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I see, so as long as something suits you, you're OK with it.

I said nor implied no such thing. In fact what I am saying is quite the opposite. I am unsure what you hope to gain from this sustained misrepresentation of everything I say.

I am perfectly happy to - and have on many occasions - change my moral position in the face of good moral arguments. I just think leaping from "I do not want to do X because I find it unappealing or disgusting" to "No one else should do X either" is _not_ a good moral argument. If you think it is I would enjoy hearing why.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You mean a person should be free to do as they please because it suits them to do so?

Again this is the exact opposite of what I am saying. I am saying a person should be free to do as they please until such time as we can think of any good reasons why they should not be. If we can think of no good reason why a person should not do X then why should a person not be allowed to do X?

meeeeh

The question about incest is not 'is it moral' but why is it qualified as (im)moral. The whole question about morality of incest bores me, the issue is so much broader than just point scoring in how liberal someone is. If anybody wants to deal with morality then I guess it's worth comparing why are certain incestous practices permitted inside one culture and not permitted inside another and yet there still seems universal ban on certain incest.

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

ok, but you're assuming I've taken a moral stance on the discussion. I haven't. I haven't claimed it is right or wrong, I've tried several times to allay the cries of ew and ick...and in turn attempted to discuss the taboo.

I'm not really responding to those points though, I'm responding to the question of evolution being raised, when evolution (i.e. the appeal to nature) is completely irrelevant to this debate.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm not really responding to those points though, I'm responding to the question of evolution being raised, when evolution (i.e. the appeal to nature) is completely irrelevant to this debate.

it's actually at the core of the debate.

[thanks for waiting for me to wake up to rejoin the discussion ]

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

it's actually at the core of the debate.

No it isn't. What has evolution got to do with something being morally permissible or not?

Cody Pomeray

Cazrcasm I'm not going to engage in a quote war, so I'm just going to respond to a critical point

Czarcasm wrote: »

There was no incest anomaly in the above example? The participants are not related.

Yes, the "Uncle" situation is anomalous, as are the even stronger 'step-father' situations as can arise, because the same argument can be tendered, i.e. these people are in a permanent, ongoing de-factor or actual family relationship with these people, and yet are free to engage in sexual relationships with them. This suggests an irrationality in the law.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No it isn't. What has evolution got to do with something being morally permissible or not?

Because I don't see the discussion as one based on morals entirely. The question was "what is actually wrong with incest?"
You suppose it's a moral question. If incest was "right" and widespread in society there would be considerable genetic mutations which may have wiped out smaller societies in the past. Since the human species is programmed to survive it would be deemed disadvantageous to have a popualtion which reproduces defectively.

I understand it's a very clinical approach and of course there are moral issues too but as far as I can see, if research suggests we have developed an innate response which steers us away from finding our siblings attractive it most likely evolutionary as a result of the above happening at some time or other.

(to compare this with homosexuality, it has always been the case that there has never been issue with female sexuality, the problem appears to rest in the lap of men. It has been suggested they cannot reproduce but that is untrue, they can, they have and they will, reproduction has never been an issue wrt homosexuality.)

As others have pointed out there may have been equally profound effects due to cultural conditioning but none of which boil down to the simpicity of it being merely a moral issue. I don't believe it is.