why is incest wrong?

[© tweed]

why is incest wrong?

[perdedor]

Well, right and wrong are just points of view. I, personally, would say that it's wrong in the sense that no one should be boning their relatives. Then again, you ask an incestuous family...and I'm sure they'd see things differently. It's really pointless to ask why anything is "right" or "wrong".

[Alcon]

1. How do you really determine consent when there is usually a strong superiority relationship (i.e, parent-to-child, older sibling-to-younger)?

2. It's pretty psychologically well-established that confusing familial and sexual love can mess you up big time.

[opebo]

It isn't 'wrong'.

[J. J.]

1. How do you really determine consent when there is usually a strong superiority relationship (i.e, parent-to-child, older sibling-to-younger)?

First, I'm going to disagree.  The could be an incestuous relationship between adults, even in separate households.  There could be legitimate consent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My big one is birth defects and genetic abnormalities.

[Alcon]

First, I'm going to disagree.  The could be an incestuous relationship between adults, even in separate households.  There could be legitimate consent.

I actually see no great harm in adult incest.  If it's not directly harming anyone, I don't much care.  I assumed this question was about family incest, which was probably perfunctory.

But when it comes to adult/child incest, or child/child incest, or any incest with disproportionate levels of consent, it's rape of the worst kind.

My big one is birth defects and genetic abnormalities.

I'm getting déjà vu.  Wasn't it established in an old topic that it isn't a concern unless it's multi-generational incest?  And that only relates to procreation, not all incestuous sexual relationships.  That seems like one of the most trivial arguments against it.

Edit: That may have been among cousins, actually.  Siblings probably have a much higher rate.  But, again, I doubt many siblings are interested in procreation.  Or sex, for that matter.  Yuck.  Glad I'm an only child.

[J. J.]

First, I'm going to disagree.  The could be an incestuous relationship between adults, even in separate households.  There could be legitimate consent.

I actually see no great harm in adult incest.  If it's not directly harming anyone, I don't much care.  I assumed this question was about family incest, which was probably perfunctory.

But when it comes to adult/child incest, or child/child incest, or any incest with disproportionate levels of consent, it's rape of the worst kind.

When it involves children, I say no, because of consent and the ability to give consent.

My big one is birth defects and genetic abnormalities.

I'm getting déjà vu.  Wasn't it established in an old topic that it isn't a concern unless it's multi-generational incest?  And that only relates to procreation, not all incestuous sexual relationships.  That seems like one of the most trivial arguments against it.

Edit: That may have been among cousins, actually.  Siblings probably have a much higher rate.  But, again, I doubt many siblings are interested in procreation.  Or sex, for that matter.  Yuck.  Glad I'm an only child.
[/quote]

I think we did have that discussion, but not that conclusion.  I remember posting a photo Charles the Bewitched (and asking States how deformed he was). 

[minionofmidas]

The risk for first-cousin offspring is only marginally higher than for people generally - comparable to that for the offspring of mothers over (what was the exact figure? Somewhere in the 30s. Pretty low in the 30s actually, IIRC.) For siblings, it is of course also lower than for parent-child relationships, but higher than for cousins.
Obviously this assumes that these siblings were not themselves descended from incestuous parents. The risks are sort of cumulative. European High Nobility is a small set of families that have been intermarrying for centuries. Small wonder there haven't been any non-deformed people born to them for a while. [/slight exaggeration]
Sexual experimentation among siblings soon after puberty is surprisingly common, especially in large and/or relatively isolated families, and usually ends pretty quickly as well. (I know a story about it from my own family. But I don't think the people in question know that I know.) In and of itself, I wouldn't think that there's anything wrong with people as do that, as long as there isn't a huge age difference. Now, if it goes on for years... something may be amiss.
There's also the scientifically demonstratable bit about how siblings who weren't raised as siblings tend to be sexually attracted to each other to an unusual degree.

[J. J.]

Don't let this



happen to you!

[minionofmidas]

www.englishmonarchs.co.uk? Yeah, ok, I won't become an English Monarch.

[John Dibble]

Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

Only if there is a wide selection of potential mates about. Which isn't\wasn't true in many societies. And even then your claim is dubious... It is 'wrong' because it represents "Closedness" to the world. It's interesting to note most of things the society considers Paraphilias Incest is the only one isn't considered related to Urban Bohemians but rather Rednecks.

* - If you want to be really technically, every single sexual relationship is incentous as every human being is related via the same Mother going back when Homo Sapiens were a minor tribe of hominids in the Sands of East Africa.

[Michael Z]

why is incest wrong?

Why do you ask? Did you meet a hot cousin lately?

[John Dibble]

Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

Only if there is a wide selection of potential mates about. Which isn't\wasn't true in many societies. And even then your claim is dubious...

Well, I meant direct siblings and parents - cousin marriages have been rather common throughout history for the reason you stated above. Sibling/Parental incest is generally considered disgusting and therefore "wrong" due to our instincts, but I'd say the stigma against cousin incest is mainly a cultural phenomenon.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

Only if there is a wide selection of potential mates about. Which isn't\wasn't true in many societies. And even then your claim is dubious...

Well, I meant direct siblings and parents - cousin marriages have been rather common throughout history for the reason you stated above. Sibling/Parental incest is generally considered disgusting and therefore "wrong" due to our instincts, but I'd say the stigma against cousin incest is mainly a cultural phenomenon.

Usually in most societies that is the case though in some Sister-Brother marriages aren't totally unheard of. Never heard of a society where relations between a Mother and Son were not totally taboo.

Of course then there is sexual abuse; which just adds to the notion that the stigma is mainly societal and 'natural' (whatever that is.)

[© tweed]

why is incest wrong?

Why do you ask? Did you meet a hot cousin lately?

I appreciate you personalizing the question when it's not necessary at all.  but I'll sort of answer anyway.  I don't have any first cousins and I haven't seen my second and third cousins in about three years.  and most are much older than I.  so, no.

mainly, this has to do with Gully stating in another thread..

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so I've always been taught that incest in wrong, and viscerally am disgusted by it, but objectively it's hard to come up for a non-scientific reason for exactly why.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

because God said it was wrong

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Well Tweed, no-one is told in school "Incest is wrong". Anyway Education is more subtle than that. But given that most school system in Ireland (and I imagine from what I have read, the US) pretend sex does not exist until you are 16 and half-pregnant\nearly a father it is not an issue.

I also doubt that believing Incest is wrong is the most irrational thing you believe.

As for an actual answer, That's beyond me. Though as I said Incest is often associated with Rural hicks - perhaps those with more time, less brain and less potential mates than someone living in a city or a massive extension to a city like LI.

I also doubt that 'nature' has anything to do with. The second law of internet debating (the first being Godwin o\c) is that when people say "Human Nature" they mean "Stuff which seems normal to me".

[Bono]

The risk for first-cousin offspring is only marginally higher than for people generally - comparable to that for the offspring of mothers over (what was the exact figure? Somewhere in the 30s. Pretty low in the 30s actually, IIRC.) For siblings, it is of course also lower than for parent-child relationships, but higher than for cousins.

Wouldn't the rate of risk be higher for siblings than for parent-children, considering siblings have the same genetic material, and a parent only has half of the child's?

Obviously this assumes that these siblings were not themselves descended from incestuous parents. The risks are sort of cumulative. European High Nobility is a small set of families that have been intermarrying for centuries. Small wonder there haven't been any non-deformed people born to them for a while. [/slight exaggeration]
Sexual experimentation among siblings soon after puberty is surprisingly common, especially in large and/or relatively isolated families, and usually ends pretty quickly as well. (I know a story about it from my own family. But I don't think the people in question know that I know.) In and of itself, I wouldn't think that there's anything wrong with people as do that, as long as there isn't a huge age difference. Now, if it goes on for years... something may be amiss.
There's also the scientifically demonstratable bit about how siblings who weren't raised as siblings tend to be sexually attracted to each other to an unusual degree.

Weren't two of your grandparents twins?

[jokerman]

Looking at it with a purely scientific perspective, societies developing moral codes which included the prohibition of incest had an advantage over societies devloping moral codes which did not prohibit incest.

[Alcon]

Looking at it with a purely scientific perspective, societies developing moral codes which included the prohibition of incest had an advantage over societies devloping moral codes which did not prohibit incest.

That's true, but societies then tended to either be religion-centric or amoral.  That doesn't necessarily say anything about incest itself.

[jokerman]

Looking at it with a purely scientific perspective, societies developing moral codes which included the prohibition of incest had an advantage over societies devloping moral codes which did not prohibit incest.

That's true, but societies then tended to either be religion-centric or amoral.  That doesn't necessarily say anything about incest itself.

That's a false dichotomy; to the best of my knowledge of early peoples, their culture and moral codes varied significantly, and religion wasn't merely an outpouring of emotion and "spirituality."  It was the basis for early regimentation and structure of society.  And many early religions probably instilled many traits that are useful to a primitive society, such as a stronger work ethic, sense of cooperation, and goodwill towards others (and abstinence from incest).  Societies that developed a moral code that encouraged members to excell in these traits would have had a strong advantage over others.

[Alcon]

That's a false dichotomy; to the best of my knowledge of early peoples, their culture and moral codes varied significantly, and religion wasn't merely an outpouring of emotion and "spirituality."  And many early religions probably instilled many traits that are useful to a primitive society, such as a stronger work ethic, sense of cooperation, and goodwill towards others (and abstinence from incest).  Societies that developed a moral code that encouraged members to excell in these traits would have had a strong advantage over others.

Fair point - although you do see where I was going with that, probably, beyond a false dichotomy.

What cultures allowed incest, anyway?  (Honest question; I don't know.)  Did any of them not fall into the amoral warrior society mold?  You haven't done much to prove it's not a matter of correlation more than anything.  That's what I was getting at.

That is to say, can you find a reason why frowning on incest would be responsible for these culture's excelling?  Otherwise it's a correlation/causation problem, which isn't much better than a false dichotomy.

[opebo]

because God said it was wrong

Lots of people say its 'wrong', jmfcst, that doesn't make it objectively true.

[Michael Z]

why is incest wrong?

Why do you ask? Did you meet a hot cousin lately?

I appreciate you personalizing the question when it's not necessary at all.

Don't take it personally, it was just a joke.