What is actually wrong with incest?

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

My sister is ugly.

Mine on the other is HOT with a sweet sweet ass. Sucks to be you Mr. C.

I'm dragging this from memory but only universally incest taboo is between son and mother. Older women are less likely to be able to have children and it threatens the survival of the species. Incest is not wrong because its jucky but because it threatens survival of the future generations.

returnNull wrote: »

this is why it shouldnt be allowed

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3792109/Brother-and-sister-in-lift-sex.html

Siblings_01_1370393a.jpg

Quasimodo.jpg


Am I the only one who seen this?? :eek:

This PC world has gone crazy...

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Why is incest bad? Just because the media etc portray it as taboo, does not mean it's bad.

The media's portrayal in this case is simply a reflection of the view held by the vast majority of the human race. Everybody rejects non-consensual sexual relations, whether incest or not, for good reason which I'm assuming we all agree with.

I think the arguments against consensual incest need to be seen as having several strands, whereas the argument for consensual incest really only comes down to one.

Against:

As many contributors have pointed out, the anthropomorphic rationale behind having sex is to reproduce, and reproducing within a family line increases the chances of genetic disorders. Through evolution then, we are conditioned to find people who overly-closely resemble our own physical traits to be unattractive. This evolutionary taste arises because the genetic characteristic of preferring dissimilar traits in mates has lead to more successful breeding among those who share that preference.

So why do we still find sexual relations between family members unacceptable even if there will be no offspring (e.g. sterilising the man or woman does not make the act more palatable)? Well for a start, our evolutionary conditioning still applies, and so we tend to instinctively reject any characteristic which does not promote successful breeding. This might be why we may sometimes have instinctual tendencies to reject homosexuality, disability, or ugliness. The instinctive biases against homosexuality were given inappropriate weight through the development of Religions, with associated "laws" that are allegedly God-given, but are in fact simply a regurgitation of the instinctive views of right & wrong that existed for thousands of years.

However, whereas the instinctive (and/or Theistic) rejection of homosexuality can be overcome by rational thinking (along the lines of "where's the harm?") and experience (homosexual people do not exhibit any greater level of anti-social behaviour than heterosexuals, so there is no evidence to support the idea that it is "a wrong committed by wrong people"), the same is not usually true of persons practising incest. People in a society are expected to be able to interface appropriately with peers, and develop normal relationships with them, but people practising incest are likely to have poor relationship abilities outside the family (and often, even inside the family). People in incest relationships will not therefore be able to demonstrate that they are as normal as anyone else; they will have behavioural traits that are considered unsociable.

Sociable people engage with wider circles of friends and choose suitable mate from that wide pool of genetic material, whereas an incest relationship is chosen from a small circle of contacts and does not (usually) involve the development of wider social skills. Since we find unsociable people less attractive, we equate their activities with their traits. In summary then, we consider incest to be bad even in "safe" cases because the people who practise it have predominantly unsociable personalities.

For:

For a consensual incest relationship to initiate, both parties need to find their own traits attractive above other traits. So the argument in support of the relationship is "we find each other to be attractive, and in our situation nobody is being hurt by it".

Society does not accept this as a logical, justifiable argument. That it may be harmless in certain situations (e.g. legal age adults with no prospect of having children) is not a sufficiently strong argument to allow us to condone the relationship. The argument is flawed on many levels, so we are unlikely to ever accept it as being reasonable.

So Op, in short, leave your sister alone.

Z