Incest, explain your stance without bringing up genetics.

[Mikeyfell]

How about nepotism? Can I bring up that? (Even though it's derived from the Latin word for Nephew)

You want to have sex with someone like you. More like you than anyone who's not related to you.

Also... ya know

Two words: consenting adults

^^ this.

When the heart and the junk agree it's hard to deny them.

 

[Adamantium93]

The way I see it, incest is all relative. Badum tish.


Genetics IS the main argument against it. Its kind of where the whole stigma comes from. All that said, if its between two consenting adults, I don't give a damn what you want to do in your spare time.

Also, a lot of this is culturally motivated. Ancient Egypt, for example, had no problem with all forms of incest. Greece and Japan allowed half-siblings to marry while Norse mythology is rife with brother-sister love. There is also a record of brother-sister marriages in some Roman census books. Cousins are an especially grey area, with most cultures allowing cousin incest right up to modern times.

I mean most animals with above average intellegence don't have those relationships so why should you.

Where are you getting that information? While incest isn't common by any means, many social animal species (ie, species that encounter their relatives with some frequency) have been observed participating in incestual relations, including intelligent species like chimpanzees. Its not widespread, but it happens.

 

[joshthor]

there is no way to explain how incest is wrong without bringing up genetics. sharing the same gene pool is exactly why it is wrong. not to mention if you are actually stupid enough to get your sibling knocked up that kid is going to have the most messed up childhood ever, even if he doesnt get a birth defect. sorry dude, its messed up.

 

[Tombsite]

I have no stance because genetics is the issue?

Really. So you would have no problem with a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her, because there would be no problem with genetics?

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

If it's a parent with a child then that parent is using sick power over the child to abuse him/her.
Same applies to any older figures such as uncles and grandparents. It's an abomination of using family trust for sex and I think that it is psychologically unbeneficial to both parties.

If it's with someone that's more or less your age then...that's still morally backwards to me.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, the entire problem is genetics. Seriously. It's not a "scapegoat", it actually can cause some serious problems to any children that result.

If forced to make a stance ignoring that, I'll go with "ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew".

EDIT: I didn't realize we were also expected to mention potential pedophilia and statutory rape, as I though those were put under a different heading.

But OK, at fifty more "ew"s to my previous stance.

 

[Total LOLige]

I'm going to make a counter argument, you tell me why it's acceptable. You can't use the argument "it's between two consenting adults" or "sexual attraction isn't a choice".

I think it's gross and weird, end of.

This thread reminds me of a storyline on Hollyoaks once where one of the charcters shagged his half sister but at the time didn't know, then continued to after the secret was revealed. There are about three Pixies songs that are relevant to this discussion.

although this one not about incest in the literal sense. It's pretty catchy.

 

[BlindTom]

I have no stance because genetics is the issue?

Really. So you would have no problem with a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her, because there would be no problem with genetics?

I'm really confused and not sure about what you're trying to infer.

Your example has nothing to do with incest and everything to do with "a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her," which is a different issue entirely. Has something been lost in communication? Could you rephrase the question maybe?

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Incest generally goes along with some less than scrutable relationship disorders in general, but if you've found a way to make it work (and you're not trying for kids) then go wild you crazy people.

 

[Evil Moo]

Really. So you would have no problem with a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her, because there would be no problem with genetics?

As I see it, incest and sexual grooming of children are separate issues and should be treated as such. Often related perhaps, I don't know, but what is to stop the punishment of the latter while allowing the former?

 

[Tombsite]

I have no stance because genetics is the issue?

Really. So you would have no problem with a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her, because there would be no problem with genetics?

I'm really confused and not sure about what you're trying to infer.

Your example has nothing to do with incest and everything to do with "a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her," which is a different issue entirely. Has something been lost in communication? Could you rephrase the question maybe?

If a girls biological dad grooms (as in makes sure that she "gives consent") his little girl and then sleep with her when she turns 16 (at which point she is no longer a minor) then is it only a problem because of genetics?

Because I would argue that if it was a step-dad (which removes the "genetics problem") it is still a horrible thing. Thus genetics are not the only issue with incest.

 

[Shadowstar38]

It's a fucked up thing to do. I can't stop anyone from doing it. Just know that if you participate in such an act, I'm judging you. Harshly.

 

[omega 616]

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

Why so literal? Seems to be a theme on this forum.

I was just using a good old dose of hyperbole, honest.

I know it's not a case of "bro and sis do the nasty and 9 months later out pops a poor excuse for a life". The chances of even a small mutation are ... well, small.

I would still be strongly saying to the incestuous couple "shop around a little", there has to be a good thousand people in your local area (no matter where the fuck you live) that a relationship with is an option. Why resort to doing a family member?

If you're both up for it I wont stop it but I will say "fuckin' really?" and I think if you are both up for it, there is something ... off about your family dynamic.

 

[P.Tsunami]

To join the chorus, consentual adults. Genetics is not a compelling argument. Over multiple generations, incest is a very large problem in a population, and I don't see wide spread incesting being a thing. In unique instances, it really isn't. You'll see a higher chance of genetic disorders being inherited, but we don't stop people with genetic disorders from procreating today.

It doesn't bother me much, it doesn't concern me, and it should most definitely be legal.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Explain your stance on murder, but without bringing up grieving families and friends.

Let's discuss theft, without talking about how goods and services exchanges work in our society.

Explain your stance on animal cruelty, but let's ignore the fact that animals can feel pain, just to spark discussion.

What a silly premise. Let's discuss a societal ill, but exclude the main reason for why its an ill in the first place. If you have to say "Let's talk about my main pet issue, but you're not allowed to bring up the slam-dunk argument against it" then you might wanna reconsider whether or not you're on the 'good' side of the argument.

 

[Tombsite]

Really. So you would have no problem with a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her, because there would be no problem with genetics?

As I see it, incest and sexual grooming of children are separate issues and should be treated as such. Often related perhaps, I don't know, but what is to stop the punishment of the latter while allowing the former?

Because the complexity of the relations between members of the same family makes it extremely hard to figure out if both people are fully consenting or if there is some sort of pressure put on one of the two. Making it almost impossible to separate the two issues out in the real world.

 

[BlindTom]

I have no stance because genetics is the issue?

Really. So you would have no problem with a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her, because there would be no problem with genetics?

I'm really confused and not sure about what you're trying to infer.

Your example has nothing to do with incest and everything to do with "a step-dad grooming a little girl from she was two until she was 16 and then sleep with her," which is a different issue entirely. Has something been lost in communication? Could you rephrase the question maybe?

If a girls biological dad grooms (as in makes sure that she "gives consent") his little girl and then sleep with her when she turns 16 (at which point she is no longer a minor) then is it only a problem because of genetics?

Because I would argue that if it was a step-dad (which removes the "genetics problem") it is still a horrible thing. Thus genetics are not the only issue with incest.

But grooming children from a young age is sexual abuse? That can't possibly be your point can it? That sexual abuse of a minor is ever ok?

Ohhhhh wait I get it! Are you implying that incest always involves the sexual abuse of a minor? And that sexual abuse of a minor and incest are completely synonymous therefore a neutral stance on one implies a neutral stance on the other despite them being completely fucking different things? Is that it? Are you ok?

 

[TheFurryChicken]

Not my cup of tea, but hey, if that's how others get their rocks off, who am I to judge?

And there's nothing to say incest babies can't be king, I mean look at Joffery. (Had to go there)

 

[JoJo]

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.

Hm, I disagree with your interpretation of consent, I've think you're overcomplicating it. It's easy to determine consent: whether or not the person agreed to do it.

When it comes to sex, clearly those below a certain age defined by law must be protected from exploitation and so aren't legally allowed to agree as such. Those who have reached adulthood though should be considered responsible for their own actions and if they consider themselves to have given consent, who are we to tell them otherwise?

 

[Jordi]

Obviously genetics is the main reason why incest is frowned upon to say the least. And this is actually a pretty great reason from an evolutionary point of view. Species that maintain some genetic diversity are much better off, which is why systematic inbreeding is a pretty bad idea, and things like the (albeit unproven) Westermarck effect are highly beneficial. I think that the aversion society has to consensual incest is a huge overreaction on an individual basis, but a great idea on a larger scale. I also think cultural imprinting is what causes most people to think it's "gross". We've been taught this ever since we were young and maybe the Westermarck effect or similar has made us relatively "repulsed" by our own family, so it makes sense. (By the way, I have pretty much the same reaction: rationally I think it's okay and won't oppose it, but it does feel kind of icky.)

But let's be clear: genetics pretty much is off the table. At least in the way most people seem to be considering it here. Most sex doesn't lead to procreation, and even if it does, the probability for genetic defects isn't increased by that much in one generation. To be honest, I don't really think we should be making any legislation based on this. For that you need more than just genetics, unless you want to prohibit many, many more at-risk couples from having children. Should every couple take a mandatory genetics compatibility test? And what will be the increased risk percentage at which we tell them they can't have children? And what about other factors that could decrease the quality of life for potential offspring? I'm pretty sure it sucks if your father smokes or your mother is a total asshole...

In light of this, I think there are definitely situations in which it would be okay for siblings to marry and have children together. Even if I don't ignore genetics completely. However, I do wonder how often that is really the case. Incest seems to open up a lot of opportunities for dysfunctional relationships, especially if different generations are involved. I would not think it was okay if an uncle or a mother groomed their cousin/child into loving them in such a way that they'll have sex with them when they turn 18 and could be considered consensual adults. This is obviously not the only way in which things could go wrong. I think that the kinds of relationships (involving loyalty, respect, etc.) that exist in a family increase the likelihood of a romantic relationship being dysfunctional. Whether we should base any laws on that, I don´t know, but I´m certainly not comfortable saying that any consensual incestuous relationship is aces with me. I´d want to look at it case-by-case.