Incest.

[Wedlock49]

So, from a moral standpoint do you think it's wrong? Give something to back it up more than a "just 'cuz".

I know this is a pretty controversial subject but it's also a very interesting one to discuss.

My stand on it is, so long as the couple don't reproduce I see nothing overally wrong with it. There's obviously limitations to that but I think anyone with half a brain would be able to figure them out.

 

[Lust]

If it's consensual and everyone's over the legal age limit, then, have at it. I don't see a real problem.

 

[The Ambrosian]

I think it's pretty wrong and I imagine the general view of this thread will be along these lines.
EDIT: With some exceptions I suppose. As long as no baby's.

 

[kaizen2468]

I think someone has it bad for his sister.

 

[BGH122]

I've no idea what the problem is. If they reproduce then they risk reinforcing genetic recessive faults, but if they don't then who cares? As long as both partners are happy and aren't causing harm to anyone else then what else matters?

I think it's pretty wrong and I imagine the general view of this thread will be along these lines.

That's not really a reasoned argument. That's 'Just Cuz' with more words.

 

[likalaruku]

Well, I grew up reading manga, so I'm used to it in fiction. In reality, it causes imbread offspring prone to sickness & mental disabilities, but what doesn;t these days, & that only applies to hetero couples anyway.

I am also not against cannibalism.

 

[Eldarion]

I would think it would indicate something very wrong with the couple. After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons. There would have to be something off about you, some brain damage or hormone abnormality. Not saying its wrong to have a relation ship if your like that, but still it isn't normal.

I can't say that there is any real harm in it if they don't reproduce. But that doesn't make it less creepy.

 

[Funkiest Monkey]

Jesus Christ! Of course it is wrong! I couldn't even fathom having that kind of relationship with my sister. It is not only wrong from a moral standpoint but from a social one as well. It is also against the law.

EDIT: I sound like an out-raged parent on a chat-show. Haha. But seriously, I am very against incest just like I am against Paedophilia and Necrophilia.

 

[Loop Stricken]

... My stand on it is, so long as the couple don't reproduce I see nothing overally wrong with it...

Technically nothing horribly wrong with it even then. The problem comes with repeated inbreeding. A one-off isn't going to give you squidbabies unless one of you had something horribly wrong in the first place.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

If it's consensual and no true harm other then perhaps genetics should they have kids and the psychological harm from people wondering "why would they do that?" I really don't give a toss.

 

[BGH122]

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

 

[NeutralDrow]

Biologically, two things are at work. On the weaker side, people who share features and genes are more likely to reproduce successfully, so relatives can often seem more attractive. On the stronger side, reverse sexual imprinting means people who grow up in close proximity for long periods of time have a strong tendency to not feel sexual attraction towards each other, a very good thing from a genetic standpoint.

Morally, I don't give a crap. I think it's a pretty bad idea for siblings and parents/children, but they're the ones least likely to do anything. With cousins, I don't see a problem unless it goes on for many generations (ala the old European nobility).

With second-cousins and beyond, it's effectively not incest from a biological standpoint, and considering incest from a moral standpoint is flatly ridiculous.

 

[subject_87]

Actually, there's not much danger in marrying a cousin, unless you have a family history of doing that (according to mental_floss, the best magazine ever).

 

[ImprovizoR]

You use words like morally wrong. Morality depends on culture, society and their views. It's not a constant. And it has a meter. On one side is the morally right, and on the other is morally wrong. In modern society incest is in the morally wrong area. So from a moral standpoint it is immoral because society says it is. I know what you said about "just cuz" argument but this is basically it. Like I said, morality is not a constant. It changes and it varies from culture to culture.
Morality aside, reproducing with siblings is not recommended. Different genes create better babies. Not always, but more often. Kristen Kreuk is the living proof. Half Dutch half Chinese and she's simply gorgeous.

 

[NeutralDrow]

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect>The Westermarck Effect. Technically, our brains appear to be wired both for and against being attracted to siblings. It's just that the "against" part isn't limited to siblings, and is usually stronger.

 

[BGH122]

On the stronger side, reverse sexual imprinting means people who grow up in close proximity for long periods of time have a strong tendency to not feel sexual attraction towards each other, a very good thing from a genetic standpoint.

Where's the proof this is due to biology? Yes, reverse sexual imprinting is universally found throughout the animal kingdom, but imprinting is widely perceived as a mish-mash of biological and behavioural factors. For instance, Bowlby's work on imprinting showed that chickens could be imprinted to find rubber gloves sexually attractive only until seeing other chickens at sexual maturity, suggesting the former was learned and a weaker compelling force than the biological attractor.

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect>The Westermarck Effect. Technically, our brains appear to be wired both for and against being attracted to siblings. It's just that the "against" part isn't limited to siblings, and is usually stronger.

Imprinting doesn't prove biological cause of imprinting, just that the phenomonon exists. This'd be like you asking "Well what proves God exists?" and me pointing at lightning. Sure that could prove God exists, but it's not a reason to believe that this is the case because I haven't shown that the lightning isn't caused by something else, I've just assumed it's caused by God.

EDIT: clarified the final analogy, it was messy

 

[Loop Stricken]

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

I assume he's referring to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_and_Freud] or something along those lines.

Edit: Goddamn Drow ninja.

 

[BGH122]

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

I assume he's referring to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_and_Freud] or something along those lines.

Please see above.