What is actually wrong with incest?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Ack this debate is moronic. It's not a debate. Its people saying WTF. Or ugh.

It also shows that liberalism and reason are just bywords for mostly received ideas. We are no more liberal than 1972 or 1634. We just spout the new belief systems, which are liberal(but we are not), without understanding them.

The present belief system is supposed to be libertarian on sexual mores - it's not the states job to police 2 or more people's couplings, however disgusting some people or traditional religion sees their activity.


So - why are people opposed to two sisters who meet later in life getting it on?

(I've used females siblings because nobody can argue the genetic issue, and "later in life" because people brought up together aren't attracted and otherwise there could be a fear of pedophillia, particularly if one was older. )

In this case what do people think?

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The Shelbyville of Ireland!

No "everyone" would not.

Seriously - reams of "It's disgusting, you're sick ****ers, AH has reached a new low, I won't be back"; god forbid people would think it through and engage in discussion. I mean your opinions are fair enough, but it's naive to think it can only happen to sickos.
It's very unusual and definitely not ideal, but there are cases where people fancy their relatives and vice versa. Once they don't have children, while they'd probably be better off not going there, if they do have a relationship, it doesn't make the slightest bit of a difference to my life.

See in scenarios like the above, even still those who do not see a problem with incest, only see no problem when special conditions are attached, or try to wedge in exceptionally rare scenarios to back up their opinion, or the "they're not interfering in my life, let them have at it!", "consenting adults", etc, but these people haven't really thought it through very well.


They haven't considered that there are people in society too who don't see a problem with having underage sex, people who don't see a problem with rape, people who don't see a problem with underage drinking and drugs.

Now if we were to say to all these people "Ah sure, go ahead, once you're not hurting or interfering with anyone else, it's all gravy!". But here's the problem- People push boundaries and break rules, it's in their nature from the time they're born. Nobody likes to be told what not to do.

So to try and draw a line in the sand in some very grey areas, that's why society has laws, to protect people from themselves, and each other.

This is why there are laws against incest, so that a 19 year old sister cannot legally seduce her 12 year old brother and carry on a sexual relationship, with the result of her getting pregnant. But that's ok, because in the ideal liberal world, she can just have an abortion and think they can carry on where they left off, it's only sex, right? Wrong.

There are all sorts of emotional and mental development issues at play here that haven't been considered by those who are only thinking about the physical sexual practice of incest.

They haven't given any regard to the effects of incest on a person's ability to form relationships outside their own immediate relations, not to mention the fact that the person's brothers can seduce them, and carry on a sexual relationship, when the person may not actually be gay, but the validation and "affection" they feel from being able to please their siblings may again have an effect on their ability to form relationships in later life.

Speaking of later life, have liberals actually given a thought to the fact that sometimes, like any relationship, incestuous relationships just don't work out, and when living in the family home, well, that shìt's bound to get awkward when you break up and you have to sit across the breakfast table from the fcuker you see as either having broken your heart, or whose heart you broke, and in the case of parental incest, well, it's pretty clear who's going to have to move out if that relationship ever breaks up. I wouldn't like to be the Judge filling out a protection and barring order for a daughter against her own father to bar him from his own house and still have to accommodate the other five children living there who are all happily having underage sexual relationships with the father, or the mother, whichever parent takes their fancy or vice versa (shìt gets messy when you're trying to cover all the bases and tease out some of the more realistic scenarios).


Hardly so much "incest is best, miniature flags for le prudes" now, is it?

Augmerson wrote: »

It leads to inbreeding and weakening of the human DNA pool.

Incest and council housing estates have the same repercussions so.

Why do I like to watch hot milfs with the biggest baps shoot hot milk into the mouth of their gaping "son". Is it some sort of fcuked up revenge fantasy or what; did mother not give me the nourishment I required

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed. Welcome to the real world It is the same with many things. A straight guy can have sex with girls but only if she is over a certain age. Therefore "Sex should be allowed, but only with special conditions attached".

The world is not black and white. We attach caveats and conditions to many - many things. So it should be.

Perhaps but I am not talking about law. My conversation is about whether incest is - itself - morally right or wrong.

What you're actually doing though Tax, is using one argument when it suits you, and dismissing it when it doesn't. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the issue of incest, then ignoring or dismissing the issues involved, the ones that don't suit your argument, will of course lead to the "I'm right and you're wrong! Ha!" way of thinking. You want to ignore the laws regarding the issue, and discuss it purely from an ethical and moral perspective. An open discussion doesn't work like that.

Again - I am talking about how the one word is used to describe many different types of sex between relatives. Some of which are "consensual". Some of which are not. Therefore the word itself can muddy any conversation we have on the subject. Rather - it is worth being very specific about what we are talking about at any given time.

Incest describes only ONE type of sexual relationship - that of sexual relations between family members or close relatives.

Pedastry is in no way related to incest, so we should leave that word aside, as the only person using it to muddy the waters is yourself.

Which is why it is worth having conversation on the fact. The same was true of homosexuality. Yet the zeitgeist there is changing. If no one can come up with an actual argument as to why an adult person should not be allowed choose and consent to have sex with her adult sibling - then it is time to recognise that we are justing enforcing our own desires on others.

More muddying waters - Homosexuality and incest are two completely different concepts. It's taken long enough for the homosexual community to shake off the association with pedophilia, lets not now try and associate incest with homosexuality.

The bolded bit - You're introducing your own special conditions yet again. Legally in Spain, if incest were allowed, a 13 and 14 year old brother could enter into a consensual sexual relationship, and neither of them are as you put it - consenting adults; but, they ARE above the age of consent. If you were to suggest there is something wrong with that, then you are just enforcing your own desires on others.

Teenagers both gay and straight engage in underage sex all the time, so by that reasoning - you see no issue with incest, but you have a problem with underage sex? Does that make sense to you? Because it sure as hell doesn't make any sense to me!

I see no merit in morality? Bull. Do you have to make things up about other people in order to make your point? If so then prehaps your point needs rethinking. Disagreeing with YOUR interpretation of morality is not the same as having no interest in morality at all.

I hadn't meant you personally Tax, apologies for that, I should've been clearer that I was addressing the "pro" incest audience, and not specifically targeting you in particular. I'm not a fan of that kind of silly "oh well if you don't agree with me you're not this that or the other".

For me morality is something where we sit down and look for actual reasons to say "X is wrong" and if we can not think of any then why call it wrong?

That's not morality, that's logic and reason. Of course if you're using logic and reason to analyse an issue, you're not going to see why anyone in the absence of logic and reason might still have moral and ethical reservations. It's not wrong to have a moral or ethical objection to a behaviour, but if these are reasons you choose to ignore because they make no sense to you, well, that's when the discussion would reach a standoff with neither party willing to compromise.

And if the only argument for "X is wrong" that you can come up with is "I find it disgusting and I never want to do it" then thats just "Fail".

How is it fail? It's a person expressing an opinion in the very same fashion as you are entitled to express your opinion. Just because to you personally it's a "fail", doesn't make it invalid. It's an opinion too that is shared by the majority, for many reasons. I could give you a long list, but I'm thinking you'll still maintain the "I said consenting adults" stance, or someone else will maintain the "As long as they don't have children" stance, or someone else yet again will say "But what if they were separated at birth, would it be ok then?".

You can come up with as many different arguments for why it should be ok as for why it shouldn't be ok, but unless you were willing to explore ALL aspects of the issue, then unfortunately this discussion will fail to progress.

Let me put it another way - Can anyone think of a GOOD reason why we should allow for incest in society?

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the only argument for "X is wrong" that you can come up with is "I find it disgusting and I never want to do it" then thats just "Fail".

If it's the morality of the issue that you have difficulty with then for you the subject is not about incest but rather human morality and its relevance in society, which is a different discussion entirely. It supposes that the taboo is due to social conditioning (freud) wheras there is researched evidence to suggest the taboo derives naturally as a result of innate attitudes. (westermark)

The validity of the reverse sexual imprinting theory is based on studies within particular societies which demonstrate that without interference, humans navigated away from their close relatives and peers.

If peoples reaction is "ick" it's not just a moral response (one which has been taught based on codes of conditioning be it is social or religious) but an innate acknowledgment that recognizes the bond between siblings and family as one which supersedes or is independent of sexual desire. (an innate result of human development)

Deleted User wrote: »

But I am doing no such thing. My comments relate to the moral aspect of incest. Not implementing it in law. I do not dismiss or ignore the law issue. I just see it as having nothing to do with the points I am actually making. There either are moral arguments against incest - or there is not. "It will be difficult to implement this in law" is not for me a moral argument.

OK, would the heightened risk of genetic disorders in their offspring be a moral issue, ethical issue or a medical issue according to you, because any argument I could think of, you can immediately dismiss it as something else, because according to YOU PERSONALLY, such issues have nothing to do with the morality of incest. You are failing to recognise or make allowances for the fact that not everybody thinks the same way you do. If I didn't know better I'd suggest you were being purposely obtuse.

Yes and no. Sub-categories are completely possible though. Parental-child relationships. Sibling relationships. Cousin relationships. The umberella term "incest" applies to them all which is clearly not helpful.

How is "incest" an umbrella term of any sort? You are talking about the relation to each other of the people within an incestuous relationship.

It would be like trying to discuss the evils of kick boxing under the umberella term "sport" and having people use the word "sport" to jump over to lawn bowling in the middle of the conversation - even though the two have little in common except perhaps breathing.

Ehh, no, no it wouldn't. A better analogy for what you're trying to put forward is two people who are related, participating in a BDSM relationship. BDSM comes under the umbrella term of "sex", but it's the who you are having sex WITH, that makes for the important distinction between a healthy BDSM relationship, and one in which the participants are related to each other. There are all manner of moral issues that come into the equation there if one of the parties involved is considered an authority figure of the person (or persons) who take the submissive or dominant role in the relationship. For example an elder sister who may be seduced by her younger brother - society would assume the elder sister should know better, but the younger brother may have manipulated her into giving consent to being submissive to him.

So I see being specific about what we are talking about as being very important. If we are talking about the consensual sex between adults then I see no arguments to suggest there is anything morally wrong with this.

Again, YOU PERSONALLY see nothing morally wrong with consensual sex between two adults who are related to each other, but the rest of society doesn't see it the same way you do. You are just choosing to ignore this, and that's why you cannot participate in a reasonable discussion on the issue of incest, because you only want to discuss it on your terms, using your definitions, in an extremely specific set of circumstances. Naturally then you're not going to acknowledge the wider issues involved or the opinions of other people. I'm not trying to change your mind on the issue here, I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge and understand that the discussion goes way beyond your own limited point of view.

If someone wants to discuss a father having sex with his underage daugther however then clearly we are having a different conversation - again under the umberella term "incest".

No, we are not having a different conversation, we are still discussing incest, under the umbrella term of sexuality.

It is called analogy and I am not associating or comparing the two. The point is that appealing to majority disgust is for me a non-argument. We need to know if there are any moral arguments against the thing we are discussing. "Lots of people are disgusted by it" is not a moral argument but a taste argument. It is worth seperating moral opinion from opinion on personal taste I feel.

Nobody is appealing to majority disgust. It is you are trying to appeal to equality. There simply IS no such thing as the idealism of equality in relationships, at one point or another, one person will have the power over another using their sexuality as a bargaining tool. One person (or persons) want what the other person (or persons) has. The only person who is trying to conflate moral opinion with personal taste in this discussion is you - by saying that because you do not find the idea distasteful, you have no moral objection to it.

I on the other hand have not given any opinion as to whether I find incest distasteful or not. What I have done however, is tried to show you that there are moral, medical, ethical, legal issues involved in the issue of incest, points which you have chosen to ignore, but points which the rest of society does not have the luxury of ignoring.

Again the question remains unanswered: Are there any moral arguments against the consensual sexual relations between two adults - solely because they are related? I know of none - and I am certainly not hearing any from you or anyone on this thread except "Euw I would not want to do that".

You know of none, simply because you are unwilling to acknowledge that there ARE moral arguments against consensual sexual relations between two adults who are related to each other. But here's another one - if a figure in authority such as a parent or an uncle/aunt/elder sibling, were to become involved in a sexual relationship with a person who society would see as being subject to their authority - it compromises the authoritarian and hierarchial structure of the relationship. A person in authority over another person has a duty to guide them in life. They have NO RIGHT to indulge their sexual desire for that person, because it is both morally and ethically wrong. It would be seen as taking advantage of their position, one party having manipulated consent from the other. Such a scenario above is FAR more common than willingly given consent.

An incestuous relationship can skewer a person's perspective on what is a healthy relationship, and they may find it difficult if that relationship ends, to move on from it. If we were to leave morality out of the equation, then there is nothing wrong in your eyes with a family all engaged in sexual relationships with each other. How you would think that is in any way healthy, morally or ethically justifiable, well, I can't wait to hear it (I'll even allow you the assumption that they are all consenting adults!).

I think regardless of whether you were addressing it at me or a group as a whole of which I am part - my response is still the same. They have a different intereptation on morality to you. That is not the same as saying I/WE/THEY see no merit in morality.

Well you have been making your arguments based on logic and reason, and you only seem willing to entertain logic and reason, no matter how many times I have given you examples of the issues of morality involved in the issue. I meant morality in regards to this issue, but I think you knew that. Again I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being purposely obtuse.

I very much see merit in morality but perhaps my approach to it is different to yours. I take an "Innocent until proven guilty" approach in that I do not feel we need to prove things are morally ok - but that we assume things are morally ok until proven otherwise. Thus far I am not seeing any arguments at all - not just few but none at all - suggesting there is a moral wrong being committed by consenting adults engaging in sex together while being related.

Well, unless you're going to argue with millenia of the evolution of society that thought incest was considered at one point to be morally justifiable, and is not now morally justifiable, there's your innocent until proven guilty right there. What you are trying to do is mount an appeal based on nothing more than "It's not fair, I personally see nothing wrong with it". Again though as I've mentioned before - society doesn't have the luxury of accomodating a point of view that is of no benefit to society - needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, that's how a society and humanity evolves.

What you are talking about is accomodating everyone's individuality, and as we know - no two people think the same way, so the structure of society breaks down because there is no cohesive element, everyone just does their own thing, and through our own selfish pursuit of our own personal happiness, we become even more disregarding of those around us, whom used to be protected in a society.

Because I see a difference between "X is not for me" and "X should not be for anyone else either". When someone jumps from the former to the latter without any bridge between I see this as a fail.

PERSONAL morality is fine with me. If you do not want to engage in incest then do not engage in incest. Simples. I am talking about a morality discussion on what OTHER people should or should not be doing and it is - for me - a total fail to jump from not wanting to do it personally - straight to not wanting anyone else to do it either.

I think it is you who fails to understand that such a selfish, self-centred, quite frankly immature point of view, is never going to fly. You are in your own right an individual, but you are also part of a wider society, and you have a duty to contribute to that society if you want to benefit from it. You can't have it all your own way and seek to give nothing back, nor compromise your position in order to reach a better understanding of those whom you wish to influence.

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Yet another thread from the OP where he just creates it and lets everyone argue about the subject without joining in and defending his original opinion. Good job, Tom.

He's far too busy ridin' his sister.:D