Incest

Post by **emotional leper** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:45 pm

I'm not quite sure if this is what this was meant for, but after a conversation at work earlier this morning, I was kind of wondering if I could get multiple (intelligent) opinions on why incest is a taboo.

Post by **drew** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:07 pm

Well...I'm no expert...I have listened to a few different opinions on the subject though.

Most of it, I assume, has to do with the breeding factor.

Our church allows marrige to fifth cousins and above...I guess that's far enough roved that there isvery little common blood.

I don't think that's what you're asking though...
I know one could argue that recreation sex shouldn't really matter...and if too cousins want to have fun with eachother; what's the difference....probebley it's engrained into us as such a tobboo; for the reason that even recreational sex, can lead to pregnancy.

I don't understand the genetic why if close reletives have children there are complications...but you can't deny the fact that the risks are real.

I know of (More than one) chlid of related parents...some are extremely handicapped; others are just slow.

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:34 pm

Morality consideration aside (and I believe for strict recreation, morality needn't be considered), I am with drew on this. I think in ancient times the resultant offspring of close relatives led to the taboo, even if the awareness of sex and conception was unknown. It's become hereditarily (is that a word?) engrained.

Post by **Cail** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:13 pm

'Cause it's icky.

Take away the genetic issue, and it's just icky. Then there's the power and control issues associated with a parent (or older relative like an aunt or uncle) and a child.

Post by **Furls Fire** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:35 pm

uh, what Cail said...

icky

Post by **emotional leper** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:39 pm

Cail wrote:'Cause it's icky.

Take away the genetic issue, and it's just icky. Then there's the power and control issues associated with a parent (or older relative like an aunt or uncle) and a child.

I wasn't refering to Parent/Child incest. I maybe should have made that clear. I accept your Icky vote to other cross-generational familial incest, though. Thanks.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:59 pm

Cail & Furls--as to "icky"-ness, though you probably won't agree, that's just your cultural memetics speaking. If that hadn't been the prevalent view during your upbringing, you wouldn't see it the same way.

I agree that it's due originally to the genetic aspect. Whenever such activities began to occur regularly in any society, it would have become apparent eventually that it resulted in a higher incident of birth defects. And once that starts to be realised, enters common knowledge, people will start to avoid the activity; a meme will have entered the culture to keep up the idea: "incest is bad." Taboos usually tend to begin with a legitimate reason based in survival of the culture, and through the general tendency of people to fear such bad outcomes is turned eventually into a no-exceptions prohibition. (The idea of 'sin' is no different.)

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:06 pm

For some reason, the thought of Parent-Adult/Child incest did not occur to me when I posted. I was speaking strictly as in two similar in age consenting adults.

Post by **emotional leper** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:06 pm

Still welcoming more opinions, but thank you all who have responded so far. Thank you all for your viewpoints. And I honestly do recall that as being the first time In my Entire Life I've ever said that.

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:13 pm

I agree that it mostly stems from the fact that incest does not advance the human race beneficially. So morality, as it often does (but not always), reflects that natural truism.

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:16 pm

Emotional Leper wrote:Still welcoming more opinions, but thank you all who have responded so far. Thank you all for your viewpoints. And I honestly do recall that as being the first time In my Entire Life I've ever said that.

The Watch is truly an awesome place, EL. We have our moments, but awesomness generally wins out.

Post by **Furls Fire** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:45 pm

Okay, must admit...never really thought about it between "two consenting adults". When I hear the word "incest" I immediately think of a pedophile parent/relative hurting a child.

Um..not sure what I really feel about "consentual incest". I've always adhered to the phrase.."love is never wrong". So, maybe my mind needs to be opened up just a bit more...don't know. Also, to me love and sex go hand in hand. I have a problem with giving someone such an intimate part of me in a casual way. That's just me, however, I know others feel differently about casual sexual relations....

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:14 pm

Furls Fire wrote:Okay, must admit...never really thought about it between "two consenting adults". When I hear the word "incest" I immediately think of a pedophile parent/relative hurting a child.

Um..not sure what I really feel about "consentual incest". I've always adhered to the phrase.."love is never wrong". So, maybe my mind needs to be opened up just a bit more...don't know. Also, to me love and sex go hand in hand. I have a problem with giving someone such an intimate part of me in a casual way. That's just me, however, I know others feel differently about casual sexual relations....

I guess my mind immediately jumped to Jean Auel's Earth's Children series when I considered my answer. The way she depicts the desire of Jondular's "cousin" (who is actually his half sister, IIRC) for him and which is forbidden by societal taboo, is what influenced my answer. Especially when how recreational sex is depicted in that series.

Post by **drew** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:47 pm

...What about step-siblings...or adopted siblings.

Truth of the matter is...there is no blood between them; so genetically speaking; there is no problem. But socially speaking, it is still imoral.

-Well, I guess any possible offspring out of a relationship like that, would be pretty messed up in the head--having only one set of grandparents.

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:58 pm

drew wrote:...What about step-siblings...or adopted siblings.

Truth of the matter is...there is no blood between them; so genetically speaking; there is no problem. But socially speaking, it is still imoral.

Is it? If the adoptive/blended family aspect is known, I wouldn't feel anything wrong about it. Not once they were adults and out of their parents house anyway. But...that's me I guess.

Post by **stormrider** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:54 pm

I agree with the genetic explanation. I also can't imagine -- in the case of siblings, for example -- what the hell the appeal could be. If I grew up with brothers and sisters and watched them pick their noses and make various other types of messes, I just don't see how I could possibly feel any romantic/sexual attraction for them. Sometimes you just know someone too well.

For whatever reason, this particular taboo does not seem to have been challenged to the same extent that many/most others have. "Kids" rebel against society in numerous ways, but to my knowledge, teenagers don't generally decide to break the mold by having sex with family members.

I once had the misfortune to catch a Jerry Springer episode about incest. (No, I don't remember why or with whom I was watching it -- I hate that show.) One look at those people was enough to turn my stomach. Granted, almost everyone who goes on those shows is horrible, but there was something especially repulsive about the "incest people." Maybe they just seemed more disgusting to me because I was predisposed to think that anyone who commits incest is inherently filthy, but still... Talk about "icky..."

Post by **dlbpharmd** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:56 pm

I vaguely recall a book written by a genetic scientist and published a few years ago that argued that a child born of cousins as close as first degree were no more likely to be at risk than any other child.

Post by **DukkhaWaynhim** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:52 am

dlb and I read the same article I think. Genetically, anything at the first cousins level and further beyond is relatively (har!) safe from super-debilitating traits... meaning their offspring would be no more likely than any other pairing to have 'defects' (traits that are deemed undesirable).

Its in the closer pairings (those we would call "icky"), or when you have many generations of offspring that are all drawing from the same small pool of candidates (like some Amish, or Ashkenazi Jews), where the lack of genetic diversity can really cause things to become amplified - good or bad.

dw

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:08 am

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Its in the closer pairings (those we would call "icky"), or when you have many generations of offspring that are all drawing from the same small pool of candidates (like some Amish, or Ashkenazi Jews), where the lack of genetic diversity can really cause things to become amplified - good or bad.

Such as Tay-Sachs?

Post by **balon!** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:14 am

I don't have a problem with it. I think it all comes down to love, and some people (for various reasons) find their "one true love" also happens to be related to them.

In my mind, I think of it as the same basic principle I have with straight/gay/whatever couples. I don't care who you love, as long as your not loving in front of me (kissing, holding hands, etc.. excluded and there's no pedderass crap going on).

Did I explain that in a relatively easy manner to understand?

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Incest

Incest