Incest, explain your stance without bringing up genetics.

[Evil Moo]

Regardless of how intertwined they are in real world cases, they are separate issues and incest does not necessarily imply coercion or lack of consent. In the case you are describing, the incestuous nature of the situation is incidental and not strictly relevant to the actual problem. Yes, in the real world what you say is probably going to be the case, but in a theoretical discussion about incest as a concept, it is not relevant I feel.

But this is not a theoretical debate. This is about yours and my stance on incest. Mine is that incest should be illegal to protect people from coercion (which is almost always present in some form in an incestual relationship) despite the fact that it in a few cases prevents consenting adults from having sex.

So when people act as if the only problem is genetics I can't help but to ask why that is the only thing they care about.

The question posed in the original post is if incest is right or wrong. That seems pretty conceptual to me. It becomes confusing to me when you seem to be basing you argument about incest on something that can be governed just as well by separate laws surrounding that specific issue rather than forbidding one specific path that could otherwise be exploited to commit such acts. It isn't an issue inherent to incest, like the genetic risks. It is just something that could be prevented in some specific instances if incest is also prohibited.

I do see where you are coming from though, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

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

Nepotism comes from Archbishops and Popes fucking nuns. In that circumstances, calling their male progeny nepoti (id est, nephews) was a euphemism, and of course they'd want their own nephews to succeed them, ergo nepotism.

238U

 

[shrekfan246]

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

Many species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual relationships, but that doesn't change the fact that humans go on crusades against it. Despite the fact that it's actually a pretty deeply ingrained practice in our own species as well.

Snip

I actually recognize your avatar for once!

That was a strange show.

 

[Rylingo]

I worry about the social implications. A family is often seen as a support mechanism. Should relationships go wrong, you can always go and stay at your parents house. If an incest relationship breaks down the damage could be greater because there's no safety net. It gets worse if there's a sexual relationship with a parent as there will probably be a lack of balance in the relationship.

I think it's a bad idea. Not sure if we should legislate against it though.

 

[Amaror]

It disgusts me. I have many brothers and sisters and countless cousins from every variable count. (I mean like first cousins, second cousins, etc. i don't know how it's named in english). And the thought of anyone having sex with any of their relatives is simply disgusting.
I would say more, but you really screwed the argument over. You can't just forbid the other team of the debate that they can't use a certain argument anymore, expecially if it's such an important one.
The fact is: To the majority of people the thought of sleeping with a relative is disgusting. And the reason for that is simply genetics. Turns out the ofspring of the people who didn't want to sleep with their relatives was better of in most cases, so most other people got wiped out by evolution.
That's like discussing nuclear power generation, while forbidding the mention of explosions and radiation.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

This is very important. My main concern regarding incest is not the inherent morality of it but the practical difficulties that such a relationship would bring up. Consent implies at least vaguely equivalent notions of power and influence, and I just can't see that happening in any incestuous relationship. To me, a younger relative sleeping with an older relative is just never appropriate because it's just by definition an imbalance of power. Even two siblings having sex seems a little dangerous in terms of developing an emotionally stable and mutually consensual arrangement.

But if two siblings start fooling around, they're almost certainly going to do it regardless of the law. At that point, you're basically just throwing the older person in prison, ruining his/her life over a consensual act (and if it wasn't consensual, other laws would apply).

Besides, many relationships aren't emotionally stable to begin with, and plenty are imbalanced to boot. Being siblings won't (in my opinion) affect that much more than "two best friends fooling around" (and the likely awkwardness/emotional problems after).

So long as they're consenting, I see no reason to not let *them* decide how their relationship plays out. Having slept with my closest female friend and having been in 'friends with benefits' relationships before, I certainly know how emotional those can be.

At least, we should treat it like we do normal emotionally-fucked up relationships: Let them be unless there are signs of coercion/abuse/etc. My sister is in a 'fuck and fight' relationship right now, but she and him both seem to enjoy it.

 

[Subscriptism]

If they want to it's none of my business. I don't care what they get up to.

 

[chinangel]

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.

ha ha, hilarious. Actually the reason I want to dissuade the whole 'genetics' issue is because often these discussions degrade into people yelling numbers about the odds of genetic defects and why that should be the sole reason why blah blah blah...it's really tiring as it feels like people are smoke-screening the real reason that they dislike incest: it's icky.

and if someone finds it icky i'd rather they just say "i find it icky" then try to justify it with numbers that ultimately don't effect society at large. Even if incest were widely accepted, it's unlikely that it would be commonplace as most people are ismply not attracted to their family members, so it would hardly become a widespread epidemic.

Lastly, incest is not my 'pet issue' i'd just like to see a discussion that doesn't resort to people slinging numbers around like they mean something.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

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.

But why?

Here in the US political and religious hyperbole is rampant. People are to eager to declare something is just wrong[footnote]...or the subset of this, it says so in the Bible![/footnote], and representatives are eager to pass bills outlawing behaviors for no other reason than that it offends them personally.

But in order for an opinion to be valid outside yourself, there has to be a reason behind your judgement. If you judge someone or a behavior just because (and admittedly "harshly") you venture into the troubled waters of bigotry.

People have been squicked [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/squick] over:
~ dark-skinned people in their midst
~ behavior that indicated gayness
~ displays (clothes, casual coversation) indicating belief in other gods, or indicating lack of belief.
~ people being underdressed for modesty's sake

...so the ick! factor of a select group is not a fair gauge to determine whether a behavior is right or wrong.

Ergo, you (and we all) need to do better than [Incest is] a fucked up thing to do.

238U

 

[Headsprouter]

Yeah, cool as long as there's consent and nobody gets hurt!

 

[Extragorey]

A twisted perversion, like homosexuality, orgies, alcoholism, etc.
Next question?

Yes, I'm tired of these sorts of threads.

EDIT: To elaborate, I don't judge anyone for engaging in such acts. I recognise those acts as wrong, but it is human nature to do wrong things - we couldn't revoke that truth even if we all tried.

Yeah, cool as long as there's consent and nobody gets hurt!

Define "gets hurt". Gets hurt in a physical sense or an emotional one? Because as our culture frequently recognises, psychological trauma is far more potent than physical trauma. And bearing that in mind, there's no telling what kind of actions, consenting or unconsenting, will result in eventual depression or other forms of psychological trauma.

 

[Ticklefist]

Got some genuine cowards posting today. Afraid your potentially politically incorrect views may come back to haunt you, tarnish your future e-rep. Maybe you're afraid to look unintelligent by outright dismissing something you should be dismissing outright.

 

[Casual Shinji]

No kids, no animals, beyond that it's all your own business.

What about trees? They have feelings too, you know.

 

[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.

ha ha, hilarious. Actually the reason I want to dissuade the whole 'genetics' issue is because often these discussions degrade into people yelling numbers about the odds of genetic defects and why that should be the sole reason why blah blah blah...it's really tiring as it feels like people are smoke-screening the real reason that they dislike incest: it's icky.

and if someone finds it icky i'd rather they just say "i find it icky" then try to justify it with numbers that ultimately don't effect society at large. Even if incest were widely accepted, it's unlikely that it would be commonplace as most people are ismply not attracted to their family members, so it would hardly become a widespread epidemic.

Lastly, incest is not my 'pet issue' i'd just like to see a discussion that doesn't resort to people slinging numbers around like they mean something.

Alright. I'll humor you, by taking five minutes out of my busy day to answer your question. It's mentally scarring. I'll get you started.

Boom. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12092807]

That should whet your whistle. Follow the citations, do some google searches, educate yourself. The information is plentiful, readily available, and already being discussed and evaluated by finer minds than you are likely to find here.

 

[doggy go 7]

I'd still oppose it in general. On a case by case basis there would be occasions where it is perfectly acceptable (genetics aside), but to allow it generally would be to ignore issues such as grooming and coercion.

To expand on that; it is all very well to say 'two consenting adults'. However, for me to consider it as consent, the parties must be equal and there must be no external pressure. This is unlikely to be the case within a family. Two siblings separated at birth, who are inexplicably infertile. Knock yourself out. A father-daughter relationship where he holds economic and social power over her. Hell to the no.
(In case you're wondering, yes I also think teacher-student relationships are unacceptable even if they are both at consent giving age)

Also genetics.

Yeah I think this sums it up pretty neatly, it's all very well talking about "concenting adults", but more often than not, incestuous relationships aren't between two parties on an "equal footing", but between a parent/child, or the parents children and their siblings (I can't think of the gender neutral word for uncle/aunt). Seperating coerision from incest is hard to say the least (eg. people going along with it because they instictively trust their family to be safe). If you can do that, fine, but it's not a black and white issue at all.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

It disgusts me. I have many brothers and sisters and countless cousins from every variable count. (I mean like first cousins, second cousins, etc. i don't know how it's named in english). And the thought of anyone having sex with any of their relatives is simply disgusting.

I think you illustrated right there why it's not that terrible an issue (nor would laws alone prevent parents from grooming their kids into sex dolls if they had a mind to do so). Your distaste for your own relations is an exemplification of reverse imprinting, and just as you have no romatic interest in your family, so it is with most clans with almost no exception, and so it is with all mammals if not all amniotes.

But reverse imprinting doesn't mean you're avoiding romancing your kin because you have a concern for consequences regarding your offspring. (That wouldn't be a hinderance against fruitless relationships.) Rather you simply have no romantic interest in them[footnote]Granted, I'm assuming, based on likelihood, this is the result of reverse-imprinting. It could be that they're all distasteful for some other reason, such as emotional disconnect due to religious fervor, or maybe you prefer blondes.[/footnote], much like gorillas who banish their female young on their first estrus. It's just something that they do, with no thought of the (perfectly valid) reasons they do it.

238U

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

You say consenting adults, but what about grooming? There is enough woman/men in the world without having to pray on your own family. Thats just weird and shows you have plenty of issues.

Thing with this thread is we are not talking cousins. But a mother or father preying on there own kids or brothers and sisters preying on each other. Consenting adults doesn't mean they agree, can mean they have grown to believe its normal to behave in that way.....same way pedos get in trouble for grooming.

 

[XMark]

The Targaryens wed brother and sister for centuries and half of them ended up going crazy. The mad king Aerys came close to burning all of King's Landing! Also Joffrey is a jerk.

What? I can't argue from genetics but nobody said anything about arguing from Game of Thrones

 

[The Funslinger]

Two words: consenting adults

As long as that's the case, go wild!

That is true, and as long as two adults consent, I won't try and stop them.

However, I don't think incest should be socially acceptable. Not for the ill effects of inbreeding, as it requires multiple generations to harm the child and the thread prohibits this line of reasoning anyway.

No, the problem I have with it is that I think a key part of people growing up to be emotionally healthy is that they should have some people in their life of the opposite sex that they do not think of in anything other than a sexual way, and the foremost of that are blood relations. Given the typical closeness of family, I think it's most important for them to be in a non-sexual light.

 

[The Funslinger]

No kids, no animals, beyond that it's all your own business.

What about trees? They have feelings too, you know.

I know a guy who, while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs has gotten off with trees on at least two occasions.