Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So, let's debate incest. No, really. I'm curious.

iglidanteiglidante Registered User
edited October 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
If this is too much, feel free to close the thread - I'm not trying to start anything, but I really do think there's a good discussion to be had here.

Most people consider incest to be bad. Usually, it breaks down into one or more of the following:

- Abuse of power/age differences (parent/child incest, older sibling/younger sibling, etc.)
- Deformities in the resulting children, should pregnancy occur (inbreeding)
- Children shouldn't experiment with sex (sex play between siblings)
- Denouncement in religious texts / by religious leaders.

But if we take away those three things, what are we left with?

Personally, I find the thought of incest between two consenting adults to be...well, wrong. But without falling back on one of the above reasons, I can't really say why. If there are no children involved, and no abuse, it doesn't seem like anyone is being harmed.

Is there a discussion to be had here? Maybe. What do you all think?

iglidante on

Posts

  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Those are four things. And aren't those enough reason?

    KalTorak on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I don't think you're going to find anyone here who's pro-incest, so I don't think there's going to be much of a debate about it.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • John MatrixJohn Matrix Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I thought deformities only appeared after several generations of inbreeding.

    John Matrix on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    iglidante wrote: »
    If this is too much, feel free to close the thread - I'm not trying to start anything, but I really do think there's a good discussion to be had here.

    Most people consider incest to be bad. Usually, it breaks down into one or more of the following:

    - Abuse of power/age differences (parent/child incest, older sibling/younger sibling, etc.)
    - Deformities in the resulting children, should pregnancy occur (inbreeding)
    - Children shouldn't experiment with sex (sex play between siblings)
    - Denouncement in religious texts / by religious leaders.

    But if we take away those three things, what are we left with?

    Personally, I find the thought of incest between two consenting adults to be...well, wrong. But without falling back on one of the above reasons, I can't really say why. If there are no children involved, and no abuse, it doesn't seem like anyone is being harmed.

    Is there a discussion to be had here? Maybe. What do you all think?

    So, ignoring all the negative aspects of something, what's so bad about it?

    ...all those negative aspects you want to ignore in order to have the conversation. I mean, ignoring the health problems and early onset of death, what's so bad about starving children in Africa?

    moniker on
  • iglidanteiglidante Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Because those four things only pertain to...those four situations. Take away the one about abuse, the one about children, and the one about deformities, and you're left with religion. But non-religious people still are opposed to incest, even between consenting adults.

    iglidante on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If you take away the religion/birth defect/rape/pedophilia aspects of it, then yeah, I'd say it's OK. Still pretty gross, though.

    Pi-r8 on
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Protected between consenting, adult relatives would most likely not result in a child. Is it still wrong?
    I thought deformities only appeared after several generations of inbreeding.
    And that too.

    Richard_Dastardly on
    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    OK, I'll bite. The situation at the end of Lone Star is probably the only acceptable form of incest I can think of.

    Brian888 on
  • iglidanteiglidante Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Protected between consenting, adult relatives would most likely not result in a child. Is it still wrong?

    Exactly. That's where I think the debate lies.

    iglidante on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Those are four things. And aren't those enough reason?
    - Abuse of power/age differences (parent/child incest, older sibling/younger sibling, etc.)
    - Deformities in the resulting children, should pregnancy occur (inbreeding)
    - Children shouldn't experiment with sex (sex play between siblings)
    - Denouncement in religious texts / by religious leaders.

    First doesn't always apply, second is (I believe) only an issue after more than one generation of inbreeding and is of course only an issue when you have a child at all, third is an issue with unrelated children as well and is only an issue if participants are underage, and the last is bullshit because religion shouldn't dictate morality.

    So the way I see it, there is a bit of a grey area in some cases. That said, the majority of incest cases will involve statutory rape or some kind of power imbalance due to age, so I'm comfortable having the restrictions and stigma that we have in place.

    I do, however, feel bad for those rare cases where people fall in love, then discover that they're actually related. So long as they don't breed, I have no problem with them.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    iglidante wrote: »
    - Abuse of power/age differences (parent/child incest, older sibling/younger sibling, etc.)
    - Deformities in the resulting children, should pregnancy occur (inbreeding)
    - Children shouldn't experiment with sex (sex play between siblings)
    - Denouncement in religious texts / by religious leaders.

    All of those reasons apply to non-incestual sex as well. So, do we need to reconsider all sex within the context of these reasons?

    The deformities question is especially interesting. Ought individuals with genetic diseases be prevented from breeding for the sake of preventing a deformity in the offspring? If we can be against incest for this reason, why not be against individuals with genetic diseases as well?

    _J_ on
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Jesus god I've just realised how the younger generation is going to shock me once society finally settles homosexuality.

    And this is it.

    That said I can't think of a reason why it's wrong but I definitely draw the line there myself.

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    The "abuse of power" angle isn't as simple as "if they wait until they're adults, it should be fine." It had to do with how you were raised. There's probably never going to be a point where there isn't an abusable power dynamic between a parent and a child, despite the child's age. Ditto with many sibling relationships.

    Brian888 on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I can't see anything wrong in consensual incest situations. Obviously rape is rape regardless of whether the victim is related to the perpetrator; to suggest it's relevant to the morality of incest itself is disingenuous.

    We don't ban people with the same genetic disorder from having kids with each other despite that being way riskier for the children, although it's probably a good idea to not do it either way.

    I would consider debating that third one by itself, but the fact is people who grow up together are almost never going to be attracted to one another thanks to Westermark effect, so it's somewhat irrelevant.

    And lolreligion.

    I love debating this, but you're generally going to find you just can't get people past "ick" factor and into actual debate.

    Kamar on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It is interesting that incest is one of those things the human race as a whole tends to think of as just plain "icky"

    there is some leeway as far as definitions go(like lots of places are ok with cousins marrying) but there isn't a single culture on Earth that does not have taboos against incest.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    It is interesting that incest is one of those things the human race as a whole tends to think of as just plain "icky"

    there is some leeway as far as definitions go(like lots of places are ok with cousins marrying) but there isn't a single culture on Earth that does not have taboos against incest.


    Didn't Egyptian pharaohs routinely marry their siblings?

    Brian888 on
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Let's throw this into reality and play devil's advocate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507588/Shock-married-couple-discovered-twins-separated-birth.html


    Besides the constructed social taboo, why ruin a couple's life because they are brother and sister? Before they knew, they loved as deeply as anyone else, kissed passionately at the movies, played with sex toys, shared their most intimate thoughts, and done other things that married people do.
    "And if you don't know you are biologically related to someone, you may become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur."

    Why was this a tragedy? It seems consensual. None of the 4 rules above apply. Why can't these people live out their lives loving their love of their life?

    But of course we all know the true reason incest is taboo: to promote the traffic of women within society. ;-)

    Lilnoobs on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sipex wrote: »
    Jesus god I've just realised how the younger generation is going to shock me once society finally settles homosexuality.

    And this is it.

    That said I can't think of a reason why it's wrong but I definitely draw the line there myself.

    hahaha you're right.

    My kids will think this is OK and I will have to disown them for it.

    Pi-r8 on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Consenting relations between adults are none of your (or my) business.

    There. That's your "pro-incest" argument.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Might be explained as a biological thing then, the same way animals shun the weak so the strong genes can live on our bodies shun other related bodies because...they know it'll fuck up our kids (regardless of protection, it can easily be argued genetics doesn't acknowledge protection)?

    I dunno, I'm reaching.

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Brian888 wrote: »
    It is interesting that incest is one of those things the human race as a whole tends to think of as just plain "icky"

    there is some leeway as far as definitions go(like lots of places are ok with cousins marrying) but there isn't a single culture on Earth that does not have taboos against incest.


    Didn't Egyptian pharaohs routinely marry their siblings?

    I was under the impression this was common in most royal families back in the day.

    Capt Howdy on
    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    First it's transgender, now it's incest. I'm scared of what's next!

    I think when an OP has to ask "Is there discussion here?" it's a pretty shitty OP. Either you have a conviction to argue or you don't.

    Henroid on
    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Brian888 wrote: »
    It is interesting that incest is one of those things the human race as a whole tends to think of as just plain "icky"

    there is some leeway as far as definitions go(like lots of places are ok with cousins marrying) but there isn't a single culture on Earth that does not have taboos against incest.


    Didn't Egyptian pharaohs routinely marry their siblings?

    Divine Right of Kings &c. is responsible for a lot of fucked up genetics in whatever surviving aristocracy there is.

    moniker on
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Depends. Is my sister hot?

    (eeehhhh. I don't have a sister.)

    Tach on
  • iglidanteiglidante Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Brian888 wrote: »
    It is interesting that incest is one of those things the human race as a whole tends to think of as just plain "icky"

    there is some leeway as far as definitions go(like lots of places are ok with cousins marrying) but there isn't a single culture on Earth that does not have taboos against incest.


    Didn't Egyptian pharaohs routinely marry their siblings?

    It was my understanding that a lot of royalty was inbred in times past. Now, I really do think every society is against "true" incest. Debate over how far distant you need to be in order to "not count" does still rage, though.

    iglidante on
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited October 2009
    There is a biological mechanism that makes people not attracted to their siblings if they are raised together in the same household. I forget what it's called but it works even if you aren't biologically related (examples are found in Israeli Kibbutzes). EDIT: Westermark. Thanks Kamar

    Sex between a parent and minor child is out of bounds as it is an abuse of power.

    The religious angle is irrelevant to me personally.

    However, if two consenting adult relatives want to fuck eachother.... I really don't care, as long as they use birth control due to the fact that an incestuous relationship is more likely to produced horrible genetically defective children. It may creep me out, but so does the idea of having sex with another guy. Not my place to judge.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Brian888 wrote: »
    It is interesting that incest is one of those things the human race as a whole tends to think of as just plain "icky"

    there is some leeway as far as definitions go(like lots of places are ok with cousins marrying) but there isn't a single culture on Earth that does not have taboos against incest.
    Didn't Egyptian pharaohs routinely marry their siblings?
    I may be mistaken, but didn't European royalty occasionally marry within the family? Or, maybe they just had the same problem as pedegree dogs.

    Richard_Dastardly on
    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Brian888 wrote: »
    It is interesting that incest is one of those things the human race as a whole tends to think of as just plain "icky"

    there is some leeway as far as definitions go(like lots of places are ok with cousins marrying) but there isn't a single culture on Earth that does not have taboos against incest.


    Didn't Egyptian pharaohs routinely marry their siblings?

    yes I forgot about that

    nexuscrawler on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Protected between consenting, adult relatives would most likely not result in a child. Is it still wrong?
    I thought deformities only appeared after several generations of inbreeding.
    And that too.

    Right.

    The main reason incest should remain illegal is because of the vast potential of exploitation of children at the hands of adults or older siblings.

    The issue with birth defects isn't because a single incestuous pairing is likely to result in birth defects. It's not - the risk of a birth defect occurring in the children of sibling parents is a little less than 1 birth defect in every 4% of births. However, if you have an entire community engaging in incest, with the potential for layering multiple birth defects across several generations, that becomes a major societal issue. And unfortunately the sorts of communities in which incest is likely to occur on such a wide scale are going to be places like fundamentalist religious communes where we can't trust that birth control is available.

    I see nothing morally wrong with consensual nonprocreative sex between adults, but that's not good enough for me to support legalizing it.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • iglidanteiglidante Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    First it's transgender, now it's incest. I'm scared of what's next!

    I think when an OP has to ask "Is there discussion here?" it's a pretty shitty OP. Either you have a conviction to argue or you don't.

    Hey now. I think there's a discussion here. What I should have said is "do you guys want to have it?"

    iglidante on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Btw, interesting tidbit; For relatives not subject to Westermarck, i.e. siblings that didn't grow up together, there tends to be extremely strong natural attraction thanks to genetic sexual attraction.

    Kamar on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    My position on incest is basically "meh".

    The only potential problem I can see is multi-generational inbreeding. I suspect, though have no figures to back up, that siblings wanting to form relationships would be rare enough that it isn't likely to become an issue. This may change if it is more widely accepted, though.

    EDIT: that's directed at siblings, parent/child I think there are issues with

    japan on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The bulk of royalty inbreeding in Europe was secondary incest between cousins and other weaker relations. Trouble is they did it for hundreds of years with a very small pool of people so it got worse with time.

    nexuscrawler on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    There is a biological mechanism that makes people not attracted to their siblings if they are raised together in the same household. I forget what it's called but it works even if you aren't biologically related (examples are found in Israeli Kibbutzes).

    Filial imprinting.

    Edit: Oooh, Westermarck effect. Thanks, Kamar.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Brian888 wrote: »
    Didn't Egyptian pharaohs routinely marry their siblings?

    Isn't it also a running gag about British royalty (and/or other European royalties)? I thought the whole concept of only marrying in between a small number of families with power essentially led to a situation where everyone started becomming related to everyone (lolhyperbole) to a rather surprising degree.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I thought deformities only appeared after several generations of inbreeding.
    The children right away are going to be at a dramatically higher risk for a lot of things, particularly recessive linked ailments. Of course things will get worse as you compound it but the effects are felt right away.

    Dr Mario Kart on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    There is a known thing where people dont get sexually attracted to people they grow up with, even if it isnt a blood relation.

    Which may be something to do with evolutionary psychology where it encouraged genetic diversity and became a beneficial trait.

    And deep within our primitive brains most of us still have this genetically encoded instinctual taboo.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sipex wrote: »
    Might be explained as a biological thing then, the same way animals shun the weak so the strong genes can live on our bodies shun other related bodies because...they know it'll fuck up our kids (regardless of protection, it can easily be argued genetics doesn't acknowledge protection)?

    I dunno, I'm reaching.

    It mostly has to do with the previously mentioned Westermark effect, and those 4 things above. If two orphans from birth grew up in different foster homes and never interacted with each other until one fateful night when they fell in love then I don't really care. That is pretty much not the case, though, and the law should favour the bell rather than the tail. And the bell involves abusive relationships due to power differentials/structures in a family environment. Shit like this. It would rarely be that extreme, but still.

    moniker on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2009
    If you have nothing to say, then say nothing.


    215545222_EspdC-L-2.jpg

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
This discussion has been closed.