Support NeoGAF

[SuperBonk]

Why does incest happen?

Theoretically, it happens for any number of reasons. While I know you're leading to the idea that incest is often a result of psychological issues or family problems, I don't have any firm statistics or even anecdotes to support or refute it. Regardless, I don't think we should regulate the actions of two consenting adults on the premise that they may be troubled.

 

[CrocMother]

When it's comes to law - is it really going be easy to make a law that says "Yes you are legally able to have sex with your sister or engage in marriage with her, but you are AREN'T allowed to have children with her"

Hence the arguments always tend to go back to that issue.

From the beginning, I've really been thinking within a more moral framework than a legal one.

Incest laws are like the old sodomy laws, they are just there because we think they are supposed to be there, and aren't really enforceable.

 

[Sickboy007]

Expand it to what? That is my only argument for incest to be kept illegal. I don't care about other reasons you may think i have.

Then it simply doesn't make sense, or you'd been arguing for making procreation between unrelated individuals with the same disabilities also illegal, since it's demonstrably more "dangerous".

I'm saying it should be kept illegal because they're is no positive reason to make it legal. I think that is clear enough. And now, to prevent further circular argument i will move on to best-gaf.

Except a personal choice between two consenting adults.

 

[Emwitus]

So you're saying it should be kept illegal because it already is illegal, and making it legal might encourage it? So would you say it's no more morally wrong than two say, 2 dwarfs procreating or what?

I'm saying it should be kept illegal because they're is no positive reason to make it legal. I think that is clear enough. And now, to prevent further circular arguments, i will move on to best-gaf.

 

[-COOLIO-]

just sex of any kind between two consenting adults is fine with me. the risk for the child if they aim to have one is another matter

 

[Deified Data]

So again:

Why are they attracted to their sister? Likely familial/psychological issues.



Why does incest happen?

Why? Why are we attracted to anyone? We assume the reason is perverse because we assume the act is perverse. It could be as simple as mutual attraction.

But I have to go for the night. Have fun, everyone.

 

[Socreges]

God damn! Didn't now that you could explain an situation this easy and perfectly, As far from over analyzing as it can come!

I was just too critical. This got me into long, drawn-out arguments where no one would concede. To everyone else it just looks like fluff and I understand why. Nowadays I just try and stick to gifs and empty insults like everyone else. Doesn't explain anything, but it's somehow more effective.

Ironically, I think this (extensively analytical) post is pretty awesome:

This is an interesting topic I can't come to a satisfactory conclusion on.

Firstly, OP is incorrect that we don't punish or find morally problematic people who damage the genetics of their future children. This paper makes a case against the practice (http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/pub_bp_punishingwomen.pdf), but concedes that the phenomenon in fact exists. Many jurisdictions have passed laws criminalizing women who drink or do drugs during pregnancy, andthe trend seems to be toward passing more of these kinds of laws.

Intuitively, it makes sense to me that a drug habit during pregnancy that leads to brain damage is morally problematic in a similar way to someone who breaks a beer bottle over someone's head and causes brain damage, though of lesser culpability because less malice is involved. So I'm pretty comfortable in asserting this much: damaging the genetics of your offspring is functionally equivalent to introducing the harm in any other way. The mechanism of harm shouldn't matter that much; the harm that is inflicted should be what's important.

This is not, however, entirely satisfactory. In particular, the genetic argument has given in the past has given legitimacy for oppressive behavior on the part of the majority. A first-blush reading of the moral principles I've laid out here would similarly prohibit allowing those with inheritable disabilities, or HIV positive people, from having kids. I'm not entirely willing to rule this out as an end result of my moral principles, but for now it's important to note that the application of the principle to these populations introduces substantial civil rights questions. I'll toss the incestuous population in here, too, whose oppression may ultimately be justified but nevertheless in the main be motivated by animus against an unpopular sexual minority.

The point about other risks for birth defects is well made, but allow me to make an analogy. Getting behind the wheel of the car endangers other people. Doing so while tired endangers them even more. Doing so while drunk endangers them even further. So at what point do we draw the line between an acceptable risk, and at what point is such a risk unconscionable? I'm not sure, but I do know that there is a line somewhere. That we do not imprison the tired driver does not make us hypocrites for imprisoning the drunk driver. An increased probability of harm can be considered unwise, while still below the threshold of moral condemnation, while an even greater probability of harm can rise to that same threshold.

Here's what my research found. I haven't vetted these sources, and I'm not entirely certain these studies use "birth defect" in exactly the same way, so caveat lector. That said, 20-36% of children born from parent-child or brother-sister incest will die or have major birth defects, 6 to 8 percent of children born to mothers aged 40 and above will suffer a similar fate, 4% of children born from cousins will have birth defects, and 2% of babies born in the general population as a whole will have birth defects. Based on the reasoning above, the taboo against direct relation incest would seem to be justified, rising far above the probability of harm that a 40-year old mother does, but the taboo against cousin incest seems largely unjustified. This combined with the wealth of societies that have no problem with cousin leads me to conclude that its current prohibition is largely the product of a closed-minded populace expressing animus against an unpopular sexual minority.

At some point I want to tackle the issue of bodily autonomy and our reluctance to impose eugenic limits on reproductive freedom in regards to this issue, but I've rambled on enough for now.

 

[Vermillion]

Theoretically, it happens for any number of reasons. While I know you're leading to the idea that incest is often a result of psychological issues or family problems, I don't have any firm statistics or even anecdotes to support or refute it. Regardless, I don't think we should regulate the actions of two consenting adults on the premise that they may be troubled.

True. But in general, we get that there is a high likelihood of those problems existing - hence the study on the wiki page for the Westermarck effect.

Incest doesn't hurt anyone by itself, but society is unlikely to accept it because it comes from those problems. It's a family that spreads out nowhere, and ends up attempting to be with a family member, in spite of the amount of people in the world being there.

This is the same reason we don't look at step-children fucking nearly as harshly. They can fuck and have children with normal genetic consequence, and besides that, they are entirely unrelated. They're family by marriage only.

Furthermore, such decisions can serve to tear families apart, unless there are even worse psychological problems with everyone else in the family.

 

[Vermillion]

Why? Why are we attracted to anyone? We assume the reason is perverse because we assume the act is perverse. It could be as simple as mutual attraction.

But I have to go for the night. Have fun, everyone.

There are biological/psychological blocks in place for us to NOT be attracted to family members.

To break those indicates a problem. It is an attraction entirely different from that with other members of the human race.

 

[EYEL1NER]

If you dumped a brother and a sister on an island, told them they were related but nothing else, they'd end up mounting eachother eventually. It's almost a universal certainty.

Is there some kind of study that says this or is it the result of some finding?
Because I don't know if I'm buying it.

 

[SirChained]

Couples incarcerated for incest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424937.stm

This is a long-lost daughter and father who were each incarcerated for 16 months:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...tionship-jailed-for-16-months-86908-22321031/

Just doesn't seem right. I guess to some people, this is worth ruining people's lives over.

 

[CrocMother]

Is there some kind of study that says this or is it the result of some finding?
Because I don't know if I'm buying it.

Yeah, I'm spanking it.... AT THE MOST mutual masturbation... oh god I don't like where this is heading.

 

[Vermillion]

If you dumped a brother and a sister on an island, told them they were related but nothing else, they'd end up mounting eachother eventually. It's almost a universal certainty.

Whether both parties agreed or not, I'd think. It's like prison rape. Which isn't cool.

 

[Risible]

I wish I could my fuck my older half-sister, I don't think she'd want to though.

Oh Eggman, always trying too hard.

 

[Overdoziz]

I only support twin sister incest, and only if they're hot.

 

[Despera]

So how long till this episode of Friends is considered unethical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wun7WM-yqGg#t=2m43s

 

[cutmeamango]

This topic reminds of the story of a kid in my school that killed himself for being bullied after he told the kids in his class that he masturbated everyday to his older and hot sister.

 

[Socreges]

There are biological/psychological blocks in place for us to NOT be attracted to family members.

To break those indicates a problem. It is an attraction entirely different from that with other members of the human race.

It's kind of annoying that 'Incest-GAF' is being selective in their replies and ignoring salient points like these as if they haven't been made several times.

I think I also explained why the 'dwarf' comparison is a pretty poor one (not to mention interracial couples, homosexuality, etc. which I think other people have torn down), yet Deified and Sickboy won't reply.

So how long till this episode of Friends is considered unethical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wun7WM-yqGg#t=2m43s

It's comedy, not advocacy.

 

[bone_and_sinew]

Yeah no, I'm not down with House Lannister and House Targaryen.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

When it's comes to law - is it really going be easy to make a law that says "Yes you are legally able to have sex with your sister or engage in marriage with her, but you are AREN'T allowed to have children with her"

Hence why the arguments always tend to go back to that issue.

This line of argument makes no sense to me. Not a single person in this thread has predicted the imminent demise of incest laws. The entire discussion, save for your posts, has been about whether incest laws ought to be repealed, not whether they will be. Engaging with a different question than the one presented in the original posting is arguing in bad faith, though can be done inadvertently.

 

[Speevy]

Yeah no, I'm not down with House Lannister and House Targaryen.

And this is another point.

When brother and sister fornicate in the king's bed, who is surprised that the fruit of their incest is rotten?

You incest, you get King Joffrey.

 

[Despera]

So again:

Why are they attracted to their sister? Likely familial/psychological issues.

There are biological/psychological blocks in place for us to NOT be attracted to family members.

To break those indicates a problem. It is an attraction entirely different from that with other members of the human race.

So you are telling me if two siblings were separated since birth and met each other 20 years later by accident wouldn't possibly become attracted to each other because of psychological/biological blocks?

 

[Sickboy007]

It's kind of annoying that 'Incest-GAF' is being selective in their replies and ignoring salient points like these as if they haven't been made several times.

I think I also explained why the 'dwarf' comparison is a pretty poor one (not to mention interracial couples, homosexuality, etc. which I think other people have torn down), yet Deified and Sickboy won't reply.

That's because i agree with most of your points.

Yes, it's really easy to tell a kid not to fuck his sister. Yes, siblings that do it are mostly from broken families (Westermarck effect). Yes, i find it personally disgusting.

This doesn't change the fact that the only legal reason to ban it (genetic predisposition to birth defects) isn't so sound after all.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I'm saying it should be kept illegal because they're is no positive reason to make it legal. I think that is clear enough. And now, to prevent further circular arguments, i will move on to best-gaf.

Sure there's a positive reason to make it legal. The satisfaction of human wants is a good thing. Legalizing incestuous relationships would allow a few couples to lead happier lives. Besides which, in all spheres but especially in sexual ones, the presumption should be in favor of keeping the government the fuck out of our lives.

There are biological/psychological blocks in place for us to NOT be attracted to family members.

To break those indicates a problem. It is an attraction entirely different from that with other members of the human race.

Anyone concern trolling about comparisons to homosexuality needs to take a long, hard look at this post.

If having an attraction entirely different to the majority of the human race is an issue, I'm afraid queers aren't going to fare too well in your moral calculus, if you're consistent in the application of your principles. That the Westermarck Effect is not universal in its application does not prove that those who lack it are immoral or damaged. You cannot derive an ought from an is; that evolution has shaped us in certain ways does not make those ways infallibly moral.

 

[alexthekid]

I was just too critical. This got me into long, drawn-out arguments where no one would concede. To everyone else it just looks like fluff and I understand why. Nowadays I just try and stick to gifs and empty insults like everyone else. Doesn't explain anything, but it's somehow more effective.

Hehe I honestly didn't mind you analyzing, I just didn't feel like supporting your post sneaking in something negative

 

[Socreges]

That's because i agree with most of your points.

Yes, it's really easy to tell a kid not to fuck his sister. Yes, siblings that do it are mostly from broken families (Westermarck effect). Yes, i find it personally disgusting.

This doesn't change the fact that the only legal reason to ban it (genetic predisposition to birth defects) isn't so sound after all.

My bad. I thought you were equating incest and dwarves (coupling), but I guess you were just saying that both should be legal.

My issue is more with people like Deified who draw poor analogies and see it this way:

"I don't get the moral outrage over it. The arguments against it could be levelled against just about any other situation."

So you are telling me if two siblings were separated since birth and met each other 20 years later by accident wouldn't possibly become attracted to each other because of psychological/biological blocks?

That's actually a loophole in the evolutionary adaptation and doesn't counter what he's saying at all.

 

[Escape Goat]

Has it been established there is a significant segment of the population who is 1) engaged in incestuous behavior and 2) want to get married?

 

[Socreges]

Hehe I honestly didn't mind you analyzing, I just didn't feel like supporting your post sneaking in something negative

I know. It's an irresistible meme. Like with Manics beating his wife. Kind of tough not to participate.

 

[Socreges]

Anyone concern trolling about comparisons to homosexuality needs to take a long, hard look at this post.

If having an attraction entirely different to the majority of the human race is an issue, I'm afraid queers aren't going to fare too well in your moral calculus, if you're consistent in the application of your principles. That the Westermarck Effect is not universal in its application does not prove that those who lack it are immoral or damaged. You cannot derive an ought from an is; that evolution has shaped us in certain ways does not make those ways infallibly moral.

I think it's more poor wording on his part. Context makes them distinct, imo. The Westermarck Effect is a product of genetic defects not being good for business. Thus our biology has put a 'block' on that activity. I'm not so sure that this can be made analogous to homosexuality. It's not just about 'majority rules'. There's more going on. Not to mention that with incest there is a choice. With homosexuality there isn't.

 

[Despera]

That's actually a loophole in the evolutionary adaptation and doesn't counter what he's saying at all.

I know that the argument for the evolutionary adaptation requires both family members to know each others' identities. Meaning, whatever evolved gene is responsible of blocking any kind of sexual attraction between family members wouldn't have sufficient data to function properly.

My real question is: Do we actually have evidence to prove the authenticity of such argument?

 

[Socreges]

I know that the argument for the evolutionary adaptation requires both family members to know each others' identities. Meaning, whatever evolved gene is responsible of blocking any kind of sexual attraction between family members wouldn't have sufficient data to function properly.

My real question is: Do we actually have evidence to prove the authenticity of such argument?

Nope, not even. What's required is that they spend considerable time together at a young age (eg, 0-6). That (virtually always) engenders a lack of attraction.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

tl;dr I'm not into incest but I don't get the moral outrage over it. The arguments against it could be levelled against just about any other situation. Thoughts?

 

[Josh7289]

It's fine as long as they don't make babies.

It's also bad when pregnant women drink or smoke, and when others smoke around pregnant women.

 

[edornob]

WOULD

 

[Vermillion]

So you are telling me if two siblings were separated since birth and met each other 20 years later by accident wouldn't possibly become attracted to each other because of psychological/biological blocks?

They could. But that just rolls back to familial issues.

Anyone concern trolling about comparisons to homosexuality needs to take a long, hard look at this post.

If having an attraction entirely different to the majority of the human race is an issue, I'm afraid queers aren't going to fare too well in your moral calculus, if you're consistent in the application of your principles. That the Westermarck Effect is not universal in its application does not prove that those who lack it are immoral or damaged. You cannot derive an ought from an is; that evolution has shaped us in certain ways does not make those ways infallibly moral.

Maybe I didn't word my post clearly, but I didn't mean that the person in question's attraction to another person was different from that of other people.

I meant that the attraction they show towards family members is different from them being attracted to another person, due to the issues in question.

 

[J-Rod]

I don't want to promote it, but I have yet to see a solid argument against it between same sex or non-fertile couples. It may not be the same as homosexual or interracial relationships, but no one has explained why it makes any of the identical arguments suddenly not vile. It feels bad being on the defense force, but I'm having a hard time rationalizing it.

 

[Tawpgun]

The reason it should remain illegal is because of the ramifications. If the people have a child, it has a huge risk to have some kind of genetic problem. A lot of anti-gay people try and related incest and being gay together. Thing is, gay couples can't have children. Other illegal "love" acts or whatever have their reasons for being illegal.

I think that's why it should stay illegal.

 

[Vermillion]

I don't want to promote it, but I have yet to see a solid argument against it between same sex or non-fertile couples. It may not be the same as homosexual or interracial relationships, but no one has explained why it makes any of the identical arguments suddenly not vile. It feels bad being on the defense force, but I'm having a hard time rationalizing it.

Then we would have to ask the question "why would you be attracted to one another," and "why is there no one else"?

With homosexuals, you ask either of those questions, and you get the following:

- They were born that way
- Because they are attracted to their own gender, period, following the previous question

With an incestuous relationship, you get:

- A likely psychological/familial problem
- ???

It's still not the same as homosexuality.

 

[BeesEight]

Argument 3 - "Incest can involve elements of coercion"
Usually, when you hear about incest, it's a parent or adult relative coercing a minor to have sex. This can extend to adults because most people are of the opinion that "why would to sleep with a close relative if you weren't being forced to?". My response to this commonly-raised point is that coercion could just as easily be an element of any relationship, regardless of the circumstances. We see an incestuous couple and assume one of them is being held in place by fear, but rarely does this thought cross our head regarding non-incestuous couples. Does this handwave all the coerced incest in the world? No. What it does is illuminate the double-standard.

I think this argument is underplayed and your counter-argument to it pretty flimsy. I'll deal with the second part first.

Just because there is coercion in other relationships does not make incest alright. Furthermore, coercion in any relationship is frowned upon, whether incestuous or not. If a husband were blackmailing his wife so she would sleep with him, this would still be considered an unjust action. There is no double-standard here.

Secondly, you can not underestimate the effects of being raised in the same household or the power of familial loyalty when it comes to informed consent. A parent that desires to fornicate with their child could be subtly shaping the child until they are age to accept the proposition. Even if their intentions are pure, there is a natural desire that a child should obey and please a parent regardless of their own desires. It's why the story of a child being forced into an occupation they don't like is so common. There is a lot of time for any family member to distort the concept of informed consent over the many years they spend with their kin to undermine the defence that both are willing participants.

Even if the two members aren't raised together, there is still a societal need to be close and receive the approval of their family. Why else do so many adopted children seek out their biological parents even when they know said parent didn't even want them?

I do not believe that you can have true consent from two members in an incestuous relationship.

Edit - And bam! You can have an argument against it that won't conflict with other liberal views like same sex partners or interracial partners.

 

[J-Rod]

"Why is there no else?" What's the answer to that question when applied to interracial relationships?

- A likely psychological/familial problem

I've heard that one before.

 

[Despera]

Nope, not even. What's required is that they spend considerable time together at a young age (eg, 0-6). That (virtually always) engenders a lack of attraction.

Oh, ok. My bad then. I always thought that identifying a sibling whilst growing up was the culprit.

But, on what basis did we draw this conclusion? Behavioral research and asking people for their opinion? If so, we could reach a similar conclusion in the case of homosexuality. In fact, I'm pretty sure some people already used this as evidence against homosexuality at some point.

The reason it should remain illegal is because of the ramifications. If the people have a child, it has a huge risk to have some kind of genetic problem. A lot of anti-gay people try and related incest and being gay together. Thing is, gay couples can't have children. Other illegal "love" acts or whatever have their reasons for being illegal.

I think that's why it should stay illegal.

This seems reasonable. But wouldn't it be unfair to rational people who can practice caution?

 

[Vermillion]

"Why is there no else?" What's the answer to that question when applied to interracial relationships?



I've heard that one before.

Well that's taking the question separately when it should be taken following the first question.

Oh, ok. My bad then. I always thought that identifying a sibling whilst growing up was the culprit.

But, on what basis did we draw this conclusion? Behavioral research and asking people for their opinion? If so, we could reach a similar conclusion in the case of homosexuality. In fact, I'm pretty sure some people already used this as evidence against homosexuality at some point.

I've never heard of this.

 

[Sickboy007]

I think this argument is underplayed and your counter-argument to it pretty flimsy. I'll deal with the second part first.

Just because there is coercion in other relationships does not make incest alright. Furthermore, coercion in any relationship is frowned upon, whether incestuous or not. If a husband were blackmailing his wife so she would sleep with him, this would still be considered an unjust action. There is no double-standard here.

Secondly, you can not underestimate the effects of being raised in the same household or the power of familial loyalty when it comes to informed consent. A parent that desires to fornicate with their child could be subtly shaping the child until they are age to accept the proposition. Even if their intentions are pure, there is a natural desire that a child should obey and please a parent regardless of their own desires. It's why the story of a child being forced into an occupation they don't like is so common. There is a lot of time for any family member to distort the concept of informed consent over the many years they spend with their kin to undermine the defence that both are willing participants.

Even if the two members aren't raised together, there is still a societal need to be close and receive the approval of their family. Why else do so many adopted children seek out their biological parents even when they know said parent didn't even want them?

I do not believe that you can have true consent from two members in an incestuous relationship.

Edit - And bam! You can have an argument against it that won't conflict with other liberal views like same sex partners or interracial partners.

So, if it's not true consent like you say...it's not a choice. Therefore, it's just like homosexuality.

Spoiler

Just messing at this point

 

[Devolution]

Well that's taking the question separately when it should be taken following the first question.



I've never heard of this.

Homosexuality being illegal (or marriage not being on the table) because they cannot produce children isn't any different from saying incest should be illegal because they cannot always produce viable children if you get down to the core logic.

 

[Vermillion]

Homosexuality being illegal (or marriage not being on the table) because they cannot produce children isn't any different from saying incest should be illegal because they cannot always produce viable children if you get down to the core logic.

But I never said that. And the other quote had nothing to do with that either, I think.

I don't think either said anything about children, actually.

 

[Devolution]

But I never said that. And the other quote had nothing to do with that either, I think.

I don't think either said anything about children, actually.

Well the stuff about mental issues isn't always fair either, especially considering homosexuals were claimed to have diminished mental and moral capacities.

 

[Vermillion]

Well the stuff about mental issues isn't always fair either, especially considering homosexuals were claimed to have diminished mental and moral capacities.

With literally no merit, though. A stable family environment will often mean that the members will have no sexual attraction to one another, from a biologica/psychological standpoint.

 

[Devolution]

With literally no merit, though. A stable family environment will often mean that the members will have no sexual attraction to one another, from a biologica/psychological standpoint.

Can you cite specific studies other than the study of marriage patterns on the wiki page?

 

[ReBurn]

Do people do this kind of thing?

 

[Devolution]

Do people do this kind of thing?

The question is are they going to talk about it if they do? If they're smart and don't want the shame or stigma, the answer is no. So we can't get a real read on it.