Responding to "Homosexuality is wrong, the same way incest is wrong"

[robvalue]

Hello, welcome to the forum

In theory I'm not opposed to incest.

What I would be concerned about is someone being groomed for incest within the structure of a family. I think this is clear when you're looking at parent/child incest. But it's also possible for an older sibling to groom a younger one, even if they wait until the age of consent before having sexual relations; especially if that older sibling has assumed a parental position for whatever reason.

[Ravenshire]

It's hard to kick that emotional reaction aside.

Indeed it is. The very idea makes my skin crawl. Even the idea of fucking a cousin, and I've got some hawt cousins, just... ewwww, NO!

[Napoléon]

I wonder...

Eliminate the aspect of child defects for a second.

Imagine a mother having sexual relationships with a daughter. Or a father with a son. Or a brother with a brother. Or a sister with a sister.

None of these scenarios have any risks whatsoever with regards to a child being born 'inbred' in some way. What then is the moral objection to it?

I honestly think there is probably a psychological/physiological reason for why many of us find incestual relationships so repulsive, or weird. A lot of it may be down to how human society itself works.

But you look at every species on the planet, to my knowledge pretty much every animal I know of does not engage in incestual acts. There must be a physical reason for this.


On a purely basic level though, I find it disgusting. When really rationalising it I can't come up with many sound reasons as for why, but it still is.

[Ravenshire]

But you look at every species on the planet, to my knowledge pretty much every animal I know of does not engage in incestual acts. There must be a physical reason for this.

Nope. Incest is nowhere near as bad as the incest taboo has made us all believe. Sure there are potential drawbacks, especially in successive generations, but it's not the freak mutation machine people think it is.

Isolate a pregnant hamster, gerbil or other rodent pet and watch a whole new colony grow and thrive from severely incestuous roots. Dog breeders often breed pups with their sire or dam to reinforce positive traits and there's a laundry list of species in the above link that choose sibling and/or close cousins to reproduce over unrelated specimens.

[Pyrrho]

I wonder...

Eliminate the aspect of child defects for a second.

Imagine a mother having sexual relationships with a daughter. Or a father with a son. Or a brother with a brother. Or a sister with a sister.

None of these scenarios have any risks whatsoever with regards to a child being born 'inbred' in some way. What then is the moral objection to it?

I honestly think there is probably a psychological/physiological reason for why many of us find incestual relationships so repulsive, or weird. A lot of it may be down to how human society itself works.

But you look at every species on the planet, to my knowledge pretty much every animal I know of does not engage in incestual acts. There must be a physical reason for this.


On a purely basic level though, I find it disgusting. When really rationalising it I can't come up with many sound reasons as for why, but it still is.

I think robvalue gave a good explanation above, in post 21.  The problem is in a parent abusing his or her position of authority over someone, for their own personal pleasure.  It is a similar problem if a teacher has sex with a student, or if a priest has sex with an alter boy.  Even if the child "consents" to what is happening.  And, as robvalue rightly states in his post, it is not merely a problem if the person is under age at the time of the sexual activity, it is a problem if the person is groomed to be one's sexual partner while under age.

Basically, a parent or other authority figure is supposed to be preparing a child for adulthood, not for being one's personal sexual partner.  It is an abuse of trust and duty that is at issue in such cases.

[Napoléon]

What if the sexual relationship only developed after the child was of age? And what of same sex siblings?

[dahrling]

That reminded me of this

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/...ated-bjork

"It turns out that fertility works best when couples are sufficiently related to each other because their genes are more compatible. A study published three years ago by Decode in Science Magazine reported “significant positive association between kinship and fertility, with the greatest reproductive success observed for couples related at the level of third or fourth cousins.”

[Ravenshire]

I think robvalue gave a good explanation above, in post 21.  The problem is in a parent abusing his or her position of authority over someone, for their own personal pleasure.  It is a similar problem if a teacher has sex with a student, or if a priest has sex with an alter boy.  Even if the child "consents" to what is happening.  And, as robvalue rightly states in his post, it is not merely a problem if the person is under age at the time of the sexual activity, it is a problem if the person is groomed to be one's sexual partner while under age.

Basically, a parent or other authority figure is supposed to be preparing a child for adulthood, not for being one's personal sexual partner.  It is an abuse of trust and duty that is at issue in such cases.

These examples are great examples of abuse of authority, but have little or nothing to do with incest. Anyone grooming someone much younger than themselves for a future sexual relationship is abusing a position of trust whether they're related or not. I think you can easily justify prohibiting parent/offspring, uncle/niece, or aunt/nephew incest for the same reasons you can justify not letting any 30-year old fuck an unrelated 15-year old.

Nap, the ick factor will, for almost everyone, always be there. People who knowingly and willingly engage in sex with very close relatives are rare.

[Losty]

I wonder...

Eliminate the aspect of child defects for a second.

Imagine a mother having sexual relationships with a daughter. Or a father with a son. Or a brother with a brother. Or a sister with a sister.

None of these scenarios have any risks whatsoever with regards to a child being born 'inbred' in some way. What then is the moral objection to it?

I honestly think there is probably a psychological/physiological reason for why many of us find incestual relationships so repulsive, or weird. A lot of it may be down to how human society itself works.

But you look at every species on the planet, to my knowledge pretty much every animal I know of does not engage in incestual acts. There must be a physical reason for this.


On a purely basic level though, I find it disgusting. When really rationalising it I can't come up with many sound reasons as for why, but it still is.

For me a parent with a child is wrong even if the child is of the age of consent. Same goes for any person who had a position of authority when raising the child. I can't shake the feeling that if you raise a child you shouldn't raise them to ever want to have sex with you. It seems like an abuse of authority or something. But those are just feelings I have on the inside. 

[AFTT47]

Because of the already-mentioned Westermarck effect, incest is not something to worry much about. I'm too lazy to look it up but I think the genetic issues are overstated if we're talking about a single generation anyway. It starts to become a problem with multiple generations. I don't think it should be outlawed although I can see it being discouraged for procreation.

EDIT: Wow, about 20 people posted while I was composing mine. My post is obsolete.