Incest, explain your stance without bringing up genetics.

[nathan-dts]

How can you not mention genetics? Defective genes are less likely to be covered by a functional gene because of the tiny gene pool. It's not a scapegoat, it's just simple biology. The only thing worse would be for a hermaphrodite to impregnate them self.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I don't approve, but I'm also not out to violently rip strangers apart who want to attempt it.

I'm in the majority of consenting adults living their lives the way they want it; I still wouldn't approve, though.

The only reason that this even goes on is because they can. If either or both members disagree to it, then it won't happen.

I personally wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who was involved in incest, that's for sure.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I don't approve, but I'm also not out to violently rip strangers apart who want to attempt it.

I'm in the majority of consenting adults living their lives the way they want to; I still wouldn't approve, though.

The only reason that this even goes on is because they can. If either or both members disagree to it, then it won't happen.

I personally wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who was involved in incest, that's for sure.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Long as it's two consenting adults and no pregnancies are going to result from the relationship, I'd like to present exhibit A - Joffrey from Game of Thrones, then everything is fine in my book.

 

[Six Ways]

To those saying "ignoring genetics is handicapping the discussion" - the point of this thread is to talk about the morality, which is not necessarily linked to, shall we say, consequences. The other way to frame it would be that we're only discussing cases which don't end up in procreation.

That out the way, my stance is basically meh. I think there's a danger of incest being based in unhealthy relationships caused by a lack of normal social interaction, but that's not an argument against incest itself. More against, well, a lack of normal social interaction!

I guess I'm saying that if two (or more, I guess!) people who are related, mentally healthy and socially well-adjusted choose to get it on, there's nothing wrong with that. Like many others though, I will state that personally, ick.

 

[James Crook]

The only thing worse would be for a hermaphrodite to impregnate them self.

I can't even begin to picture that... a new take on "going to fuck oneself".
Back on topic: Apart from the genetics, which is already a big case against it, it's creepy. And illegal (although that would come from the genetics part). Also, ?dipus, anyone?

Captcha says: "and that's the way it is". How appropriate.

 

[Hagi]

In most of the real incest that happens, as opposed to the fictional variant people imagine when questions like this pop up (cousins who've never met before for example), there are very often some seriously imbalanced relations in play that make determining consent very difficult.

Considering that most family relations are, in some part, hierarchical thus making consent quite tricky to determine I see it much in the same way as teacher-student relationships. Even if both are of age I think it's very smart for the general rule to be disallowing it and for societal pressures to go against it.

I don't believe incest is right in the same way I don't believe romantic or sexual relationships between students and teachers are right. If one of them is underage then I think it's seriously wrong. If both are of age then I still think it's wrong, though not nearly to the same degree, but it'd be the family's/school's business and I won't voice my opinion unless in private or asked for it.

 

[Aramis Night]

I don't know what this says but i have had a few female friends that i've had a brother/sister type relationship with(even referring to each other as such). In just about every instance they have admitted how not opposed to "incest" they were. Even my current GF was "my sister" beforehand. Many people were actually convinced that we were siblings. I can't tell you how much fun we were having with people's reactions to us just after we became a couple and starting getting overly friendly with each other in public. We still make jokes about being siblings here and there. Funny thing is a lot of people thought it was adorable even when they believed we were blood siblings.

 

[trollnystan]

I find it kind of icky really, but you know what? As long as it's between two consenting adults it's none of my fucking beeswax who people want to do the beast with two backs with. So go forth and populate the world with Habsburg versions of you hump I guess.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well that's going to be a bit difficult, because it's all genetics. It's in our instinct to be sexually repelled by close relatives.

 

[Longstreet]

Genetics is the main arguments since, well GENETICS. Tend to do some fucked up things when it comes to incest.

Remove that and you basically got two consenting adults that want to go wild, and i say let them. Can't be arsed to care about who fucks who.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

I don't really care. My stance if if two consenting adults wanna bang then let 'em. Blood relations or no.
My morality is pretty sparse and only really goes as deep as "Don't kill without a damn good reason, don't rape and don't torture" so I don't have moral problems with it.

As long as it doesn't become the majority way for people to reproduce then I'm fine with it.

 

[Vivi22]

This smacks a little of "talk about gun control without mentioning deaths from guns". Kind of taking the argument out of the argument there.

Considering most people overestimate and sensationalize the genetic dangers this comparison doesn't really hold. Seriously, most people seem to think that if you're related and have children they will either be some sort of mutant monsters or have down syndrome or something. Yes, the danger of passing along genetic diseases goes up with parents who are related to one another, but the actual increase isn't even remotely close to what most people seem to assume it is. In fact, it's pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. The only way I could see it being a reasonable concern (and even then, only about as much of a concern as anyone who carries a genetic disorder should have when procreating) to the point of needing to ban all incest is if incest was so ubiquitous that most of the population was conceived in incestuous relationships within a few generations and were continuing to interbreed mostly with family. But given how unlikely that is to actually happen, I'm not going to worry too much about the exaggerated concerns of people who know next to nothing about genetics or the statistics involved.

And since arguments based on a dubious understanding of the actual risks seems to be the only argument anyone ever has against it that has any merit at all, I'm completely in favour of getting rid of a ban on it.

Well that's going to be a bit difficult, because it's all genetics. It's in our instinct to be sexually repelled by close relatives.

Not really. Studies have shown people often find themselves more attracted to people who bear some resemblance to them. In fact, distaste for the thought of sexual relationships with family seems to be more the result of being raised together than being related. Odds are if you were to take two attractive people who were related and didn't know it they're not going to magically know they're related and be repulsed by each other.

 

[fletch_talon]

Cousins are fine (well I think its creepy but whatevs).
Anything closer is wrong.
Why do I think this?
Parent-child relationships (regardless of age) are wrong for the same reason teacher-student, patient-doctor/psychologist type relationships are considered wrong except its worse because a parent has had been the authority figure for the child's entire life or at least has been elevated to that status in the childs development (in cases where the parent may have been absent). A relationship between a parent and child is unhealthy and morally wrong because there is a clear imbalance of "power" and a large likelihood that the child has consented to the relationship only because of the parent's influence.

Sibling relationships I consider wrong for similar reasons as generally there will be an older/younger sibling which again creates a power imbalance. There's also the fact that I think a healthy person can distinguish and separate love for family/friends and for a partner. Say what you want about love being a chemical/biological thing, most people would agree that its possible and essential to be able to love without it being a romantic/sexual emotion.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

No kids, no animals, beyond that it's all your own business.
With consent of course but that should go without saying.

 

[Tombsite]

This:

In most of the real incest that happens, as opposed to the fictional variant people imagine when questions like this pop up (cousins who've never met before for example), there are very often some seriously imbalanced relations in play that make determining consent very difficult.

Considering that most family relations are, in some part, hierarchical thus making consent quite tricky to determine I see it much in the same way as teacher-student relationships. Even if both are of age I think it's very smart for the general rule to be disallowing it and for societal pressures to go against it.

I don't believe incest is right in the same way I don't believe romantic or sexual relationships between students and teachers are right. If one of them is underage then I think it's seriously wrong. If both are of age then I still think it's wrong, though not nearly to the same degree, but it'd be the family's/school's business and I won't voice my opinion unless in private or asked for it.

I am very surprised by the amount of people who thinks genetics are the most important reason. While it is true this is the reason that incest was made illegal to start with, the problem of cohesion and grooming are far, far more important.

Yes this might lead to a very few cases of consenting adults not getting to bump uglies, but I believe that to be a very reasonable price for the protection these laws provide for a lot more people.

 

[iseko]

Well it depends on the situation I suppose. If you have known your brothers/sisters/father/mother your whole life then it is just sick tbh. If you meet your sister for the first time when your both in your twenties or something... well then it would be better for me. I personally wouldn't go there but I can 'imagine' other people doing so.

It's just the image of sticking it to your mom/dad/brother/sister with whom you grew up that is completely wrong. Same goes for cousins. If you knew them all your life as your cousin then it's just fucked up.

Banging your stepbrother/stepsister is totally fine tho. Don't know why but it just is for me.

 

[Evil Moo]

So...you think it's wrong or right?

There is no right and wrong. Only actions and the consequences of actions. If people are happy to accept the consequences of their actions, I'm not going to say they shouldn't do them, unless those actions also have an effect on me personally, whether directly or indirectly, that I consider worth preventing. This I apply to all actions.

As the genetic aspects are a significant part of the consequences of these specific actions, it is stupid to ignore it.

I feel the stigma around incest is something of an inherent trait that has evolved due to the disadvantages of it in the long term. Individuals not attracted to close relatives run far lower risk of eventually hitting a reproductive dead end and hence larger portions of the population will be of this nature. Therefore most 'normal' people will be disinclined to partake of incest and society generally ostracises those who do not fit the definition of 'normal', making even individual instances of incest taboo, despite the relatively small risks posed compared to long term practice of it.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

So you're handicapping the argument by ignoring the most important reasons against it? That's like trying to discuss the argument against pedophilia but prohibiting the mention of law. And to think that the genetic argument is just a scapegoat indicates that you don't understand genetics and the slew of medical complications that come with inbred progeny.

I DO understand genetics and that argument to be frank is (mostly) a bunch of rabid indoctrinated horse shit. (If you cant tell the bastardisation of biology that happens whenever this topic comes up pisses me off)

People dont hate incest because they think it makes mutant babies. People think it makes mutant babies because they hate incest for irrational societal reasons.

Cousin-cousin children have a 4% chance to have a genetic abnormality. 2% is the mean for the general population.

Brother-sister have a 25% ish chance of abnormality. 75% chance of a normal baby.

Genetics IS an argument and the general consensus IS based in some truth. There is an increased chance. The idea that two people related at all will spit out some rabid tentacle demon? Pure horse shit fueled by the desire to have ideas supported by facts that honestly dont exist. There is NO evidence that its almost nearly as bad as people make it sound. NONE. Exaggeration comes into play because people WANT to feel justified hating it. To be honest i dont care what people do, but biology is important and this is THE most bullshit "Fact we all know because we know it" regarding biology in the public mind. I hate it.

 

[BlindTom]

I have no stance because genetics is the issue?