Kuu

I know of one case that goes like this

The parents were a defacto couple. The boy (we will call him Joe) was the son of the father, the girl (we will call her Mandy) was the daughter of the mother of this family. Neither Joe or Mandy called the step-parent Mum or Dad. The parents had a child that was both of theirs (we will call her Sally).

Sally was half-sister to Joe, she was a half-sister to Mandy but Joe and Mandy were not blood relations to each other.

Yet when Joe and Mandy became sexually involved with each other when they were in their mid-teens many people were shocked and thought it was wrong even through it wasn't incest at all. However the children had been raised together in a brother ans sister sort of relationship and maybe that is what made people uncomfortable.

Harumi

Reminds me of what happened in the movie "The Royal Tenenbaums" (spelling?).

I've never understood people like that. I don't see a thing wrong with it.

But then again, after seeing all the anime with incest, homosexuality, cross-dressers, and transexuals, I'm rather open and not disturbed easily by such things.

Dephanie

elwoodblues

Cultures can be funny like that. In some places it's considered incest to marry the widow of your brother. In other places, it's considered obligatory to marry the widow of your brother.

Primal

As an objectivist and atheist I am somewhat bothered by the stereotypes. Such as

luvluv: Why not?

And 99 percent Again why not? This depends on the specific objecitivist stance.

I for example as an objectivist see morality as objective mainly because I see human behavior and preference as largely objective. Human beings are no less determined then rocks, no less a part of physical laws. Though they contain more variation, they are still open to generalizations because they follow patterns.

And as one freethinker put it:

I.E. our preferences are determined by external/internal factors beyond our control, as is our morality. Such factors may come early and stay with us for life. The sex drive for instance, once built up may be hard to kill in an individual and society. I think of morality as objective in the same way I see a sex drive, or desire for food as objective.

I think incestr should be outlawed because I see such acts as disgusting even if people consent. Just as I think giving a child heroine is disgusting, the signing of a slave contract is wrong, shitting on your lawn,, fucking a three year old even if they "consent" etc. Incest can easily lead to abuse as well, fathers and daighters for example; Pa can raise Merry-Beth to think that doing sexual services is the basis of what keeps her in the house, and may raise her up to think its neccessary via conditioning. I also doubt the biological dangers are over-rated as incest seems univerally taboo among higher mammals, even Bonobo chimps. Especially between sons and mothers.

Morality is, at the fundamental level, a matter of preference. And I have strong problems with incest, it is objectively disgusting. Just like eating shit for breakfast.

I think there is an underlying biological drive to look down on incest, though this can be overcome by culture ,as the very instinct to survive can via religious fanaticism for example. I however think that generally, due to its biological nature, the feeling is shared by the vast majority. It is on this basis that I think incest should be outlawed.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Primal

Also incest tends to produce children biologically disadvantaged. Not always mind you, tends to. I think it should be outlawed for this reason as well, Darwin noted this fact when his daughter died. Now should everyone who has bad genes be excluded from having kids? That depends largely on a matter of degree I think. And how obvious what they mean by "bad" is. Someone who is very likely to have kids that are terminally ill and won't live past age five should not. Someone slightly shorter then the average is another question entirely, because it makes one ask; is being slightly shorter bad, etc? The issue isn't as clean cut.

The fact is average does not neccessarily equal normal in the functional or ethical sense.

elwoodblues

So what's the rationale for making incest a special case? By your reasoning, just screen anyone getting married for genetic blackballs.

Primal

4 things Elwood1) It's extremely repugnant nature.
2) Biological origins of the repugnant reaction.
3) The probability of defect and severity of defect for offspring.
4) How it is easily abused.

hinduwoman

There is no reason why incest should be prohibited in toto. Different cultures have different parameters of what can be considered incest, which is grounds enough for realizing that it is not derived from objective morality.

In hindu society marriage even upto third cousins is a no-no. But in some communities of South India --- good solid hindus --- the custom is for the mother's own brother to marry the daughter. So far there had not been any genetic abnormalities --- if there had been not enough to be noticeable. This is not considered there to be morally repugnant.

The only thing I would suggest is that if someone is brought up in a culture with such a deep incest taboo and he breaks it knowingly, perhaps we should have a pshycriatic evaluation of him to see why he did it. If he/she can break such a srong cultural taboo deliberately, he might be willing to break other taboos as well --- not neccessarily, but there is a possibility. If his reason is only sexual or emotional intimacy, then he is off the hook.
But in cultures like the one I mentioned where it is not such a taboo, obviously this principle would not apply.

alexander74

Well, I tried to open an incest topic, and was directed here. Excellent stuff!

I am curious; is there a site someone could recommend about the genetics of incest? I am curious to know the percentage increase in birth defects.

Still, I admit to being disappointed about one thing. Very few people have actually stated WHY incest between two consenting adults, one or both of whom are sterile, is bad. I guess I am looking for a more logical reason than "ewwwww".
Anyway, thanks for the info so far.

Ta-ta, buh-bye, and may the spirits of evil become confused on the way to your house.

alex

LittleGuy

It would seem you are lessening the part about "contain more variation". Isn't this one of the definite characteristics of human beings? To be able to think outside the box?


Without our sex drives, we wouldn't be able to reproduce. Without a desire for food we would not survive. Are you implying that an aversion to incest is to be placed alongside these drives?
BTW, no-one ever said that since incest is not immoral, we should practice it freely. I would still imagine that even if it were made legal, people who actually engage in it would remain a minority. We're merely freeing ourselves from another one of natures shackles, because we can.


Basically a number of images that you relate to incest. How is this objective?
We already agreed that incest is a taboo in most higher animals, but the case with bonobos could be attributed to other factors, such as social etiquette, and challenges to hierarchy.


Again- eating shit for breakfast might very well give you an infection. What's the problem with incest? If tis biological, what if we just take that factor out of the equation? We've invented contraceptives ya know

Then again- There are some people who are excited by scat

No-one ever said that incest being wrong was an irrational relgious belief. Some already have said that atheists(like yourself) can be equally animated about the subject.
We shouldn't make laws according to our "objective" impulses, for obvious reasons. Even if there is an underlying biological drive against incest, the fact is that it EXISTS.
As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, why would you(or anyone) honestly give a shit?

edited for grammar
edited for embarrasing spelling
[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: LittleGuy ]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: LittleGuy ]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: LittleGuy ]</p>