honestly to me the interesting point of the article i posted is that we apparently have an instinctual urge to not indulge in incest across different cultures and societies... incest would have always been a pretty convenient mating strategy if it was evolutionarily/genetically desirable... but it's not. it leads to poor results, so there are evolutionary pressures against it, and yet in some cases for cultural reasons it ends up happening anyway (as in the historical cases the article provided) and whenever it does it is almost always exposed as something flawed.
now... say you're talking about people doing incest without having kids, as you say.... there are two angles here
one is without having kids genetically, via adopting. this means they still do have kids they just rule out the genetic problems inherent to inbreeding. which is a slight improvement.. but still a flawed relationship to me because there is more to a family than just genetics. family members play certain roles in our lives.... which is what makes it akward if someone hooks up with their step-sister or something... that has nothing to do with genetics and more to do with human psychology. so if the parents have that sort of stunted relationship i can imagine that having an impact on their adopted offspring.
but beyond that... there's the angle of just people doing incest without making or adopting any kids. this is better... but still creepy. because the family roles are still getting mixed up.
I'm not sure if shooting down incest because of "family roles" from the get to go, while accepting psychologically unstable people breed is without double standards.
Red's link makes some cogent points. I don't have time to get into them in any detail at the moment. But at least genetically, it's quite clear that there are severe disadvantages.
See, that's an a priori assumption. Even if this is true most of the time, for me to agree with you, it would need to be true all of the time. Can you make that claim? I think the justification for it becomes harder at that point.
I stipulated earlier that in any and all cases involving an intent to enter into an incestuous union, a thorough psych evaluation should take place. Would that not be enough of a precaution to dull this criticism?
We're dealing in hypotheticals at this point, I realize. I don't think incest is healthy, by and large. I'm just saying that I can conceive of a reasonable scenario in which it is.
I could see like if you never knew your sibling and then met them as an adult..it would be way less creepy then if you grew up with this person in the same house.
It is creepy, but I wouldn't make it illegal. Though it should be illegal to knock up your sister. Plus what if it doesn't work out? Are you going to remain alone? Not many dudes would want to date a chick who used to bang her bro. I don't care if you are the most beautiful woman on the planet, that is outright nasty.
Even if you could safely have kids with a sibling I wouldn't be okay with it. Merely because that kid is going to be utterly destroyed by other kids if anyone ever finds out his daddy is also his uncle. Hell even an adopted kid would suffer torment if people found out his adoptive parents were brother and sister.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 04:51 PM
I agree with what you are saying. The only factor preventing this from being legal are reproductive issues, not the fact that the couple are siblings. The Courts would have to decide on whether the happiness of the couple is more important than the welfare of any future children. I'm not sure if it would be a type of Civil Rights or humanitarian issue when children are highly likely to have birth defects or mental retardation, if yhe fetus even survives at all.
I agree, this is all hypotheticals. In the event incestual marriages were legalized, I would imagine the couples taking advantage would be an extremely minute number, less than a 1/100th of a percent of the population. With such a small minority, would it be worth the effort to even pass such a law?
It's also a slippery slope because if you can marry your sister then why couldn't a mother marry her son or any sicko shit like that?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Who knows what the future holds. In the past, the majority of Americsns thought homosexuality was sick and evil, but times have changed. Maybe in the future, most people would be accepting of incestuous marriages. Not me though. The thought of sleeping with mom or sis is enough to make me vomit lol.
But there is a difference. A mother has influence over a child, and even a sibling can have a lot of influence over a younger sibling.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Actually, children born from incest aren't that much more likely to have birth defects or be retarded than children born to non-relatives. It takes more than one generation of inbreeding to produce the really nasty results.
__________________ And from the ashes he rose, like a black cloud. The Sin of one became the Sin of many.
That is true. There is still a higher than normal risk, even for 1st generation offspring. I still see it as playing russian roulette. You are correct though, it becomes more pronounced in later generations.
This is an emotional argument. You make some good points otherwise, but it's so, so easy to let reactions like these form our opinion on the matter. And I think it's instructive to see how infused into the discussion this sort of statement is.
Psych eval. + consenting, emotionally stable adults. It's weird for me to think about too, but no more or less repugnant than other scenarios if we control for those potential pitfalls. You might still be right; a part of me really wants to agree with this in full. But I want to hear a rebuttal to that that makes sense to me.
Which is why, earlier, I said that it would be instructive to see what the rates of birth defects are for older women. We don't look down on or contemplate legislation on women over 40 having babies. Or 50. Or whatever. But there are proven risks involved. Is it a double standard? Or are the risks MUCH higher for incest? I don't know the answer, but I think the answer would reveal a lot about our possible preconceptions.
This f---ing forum, though. I just started laughing thinking about this thread as a whole.
KMC: "Hey Digi! Wanna defend incest today?"
Digi: "WTF KMC, no thanks!"
K: "No, no, I insist. Here's a topic and some reasonable positions on it for you to eventually make yourself seem like a pervert, regardless of how carefully you pick your language. You're welcome."
maybe those people shouldn't breed... honestly i think there are a ton of people who shouldn't breed... and it is sort of frowned upon for them to do so. such as people who are drug addicts... it's not exactly out of the norm to tell methheads they shouldn't be bringing kids into the world.
keep in mind i haven't necessarily advocated enforcing this through legislation
merely maintaining the mainstream societal taboo
__________________
Last edited by red g jacks on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 07:27 PM
Well part of it is emotional since I didn't think this was just asking if incest should only be legally wrong. Just like the issue of kids is an emotional one, even adopted kids.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 23rd, 2015 08:04 AM
