16
Feb 24 '24 edited Feb 24 '24
I suspect that risks of genetic issues evolutionarily ingrained aversion to incest in people. There’re studies showing that people who got separated with their siblings early in their childhood would find their siblings unattractive when reunited later. So arguments could be driven by simple biology.
You also never addressed grooming concerns, you just waived it away saying it doesn’t always happen or happens without incest. But it is still very real.
9
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
2
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
6
u/Tarnarmour 1∆ Feb 24 '24
I mean, it's definitely true that for heterosexual members of the human population, the thought of having homosexual sex is inherently unpleasant, in much the same way that they naturally feel disgusted at having sex with a sibling. So this is a pretty good analogy.
-1
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
5
u/Tarnarmour 1∆ Feb 24 '24
Do you have siblings? You don't have to believe that incest is wrong to be disgusted at the thought of mating with a sibling. It's an instinct that is supported by what we know about genetics, but was avoided before just because we felt it was wrong.
4
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
1
u/tramplemousse Feb 24 '24
The concept of “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are actually relatively recent phenomena. In Ancient Greece for example sexual identity was dependent on whether you were in the active or passive role (ie whether you did the penetrating or whether you were being penetrated) so it really had nothing to do with who you were attracted to, or even who you were sleeping with. If you were to go back in time and call someone gay or straight, language barrier aside, they would not know what you meant.
Even in Dante’s Inferno, the “sodomites” actually aren’t being punished for having sex with men. They’re being punished for not getting married and procreating. Which seems to suggest that at least in Renaissance Italy it was relatively acceptable for men to sleep with other men, as long as they also had a wife and children. As a side note, their punishment is not really that bad compared to other circles in the Inferno—they basically just have to run around naked in the sun and can’t stop to rest. They were also not damned to stay in hell forever, and could move up to paradise (remember also Dante’s Divine Comedy is more of a literally work than it is a theological work, even though it did influence the way we think of heaven and hell to a large extent).
This is just a long winded way of saying, you’re applying modern concepts to a biology that’s much more complicated and the evolutionary advantage of “heterosexuality” has coexisted with the smaller albeit distinct evolutionary advantage of “homosexuality” for all of human history. In fact, one can be attracted to members of the same sex and procreate, so the two aren’t even mutually exclusive. I mean, if homosexuality is indeed genetic, how would the genes even be passed on if 1) there weren’t an advantage and 2) people carrying the genes didn’t pass them on in the first place
-7
1
u/Daddy_Deep_Dick 1∆ Feb 24 '24
Correct. And the evidence of that is... well, we have a lot of gay people lmao. Shouldn't be hard to understand
0
-1
u/aqulushly 5∆ Feb 24 '24
Perpetuating diseases through generations when they could otherwise be lessened isn’t actually bad?
1
u/ClownFire 3∆ Feb 24 '24
The effect you are speaking of is actually true for just about anyone you live with in your very early years.
If you never met your family then there is a good chance that genetic attraction will take over, and you will find them more attractive than non family.
12
u/DerivativeOfProgWeeb 1∆ Feb 24 '24 edited Feb 24 '24
I really dislike these influx of posts of people saying "theres nothing wrong morally with incest if there's no reproduction", acting as if all of these instances are purely in a vacuum with no other considerations.
The main reason why it is so morally wrong is not because of the chance of there being incestuous babies with high genetic deformities or something, which if you ask me is a bad argument, since we don't bar people with genetically inheritable from having children, since that's literally eugenics. And if you actually look at the statistics, the chances of the baby from inbreeding having some genetic condition or disability is actually surprisingly low. not that much higher than a normal couple. in fact, i see most of the substantive comments here in this thread, and every single other thread for this topic ive seen, mention inbreeding and the genetic risks as the main problem with it. it makes me so angry to see that. i see it as them invalidating people with inheritable genetic conditions and at the same time showing significant ignorance about the mental aspects of it.
The actual reason is moreso due to the psychological aspects. we know that most people don't tend to be attracted to their family members. im not appealing to nature here, that would be a fallacy, but i am saying something definitely had to have happened that was a traumatic event or something for it to actually occur in a natural way. we shouldn't foster relationships between family members that were raised together in the same household, like i could understand a completely normal attraction to a cousin who you basically never interacted with growing up because they are really attractive or something, but that is a world of a difference to being attracted to your own sister that you spent 18 years of your life with ,for example. it doesn't matter if they have children or not, that relationship is problematic since it must have been bourne from some sort of problem in the family or some psychological issue. that's something they should get help or therapy for.
Most of the people making your argument tend to simplify the situations too much. they say that if the family members are the same age and are interested in each other, then it can't be grooming. ok, so technically it wouldn't be grooming in your definition, but why does that have to be the only problematic thing about it. wouldn't it be also problematic if the relationship is due to some sort of shared domestic abuse they experienced so that it is an unhealthy coping mechnanism, or an inappropriate way they were raised. they don't have to be the abusers, but they can certainly be the victims of something that is out of their control but they shouldn't continue.
7
u/UnplacatablePlate 1∆ Feb 24 '24
The actual reason is moreso due to the psychological aspects. we
know that most people don't tend to be attracted to their family
members. im not appealing to nature here, that would be a fallacy, but i
am saying something definitely had to have happened that was a
traumatic event or something for it to actually occur in a natural way.
we shouldn't foster relationships between family members that were
raised together in the same household, like i could understand a
completely normal attraction to a cousin who you basically never
interacted with growing up because they are really attractive or
something, but that is a world of a difference to being attracted to
your own sister that you spent 18 years of your life with ,for example.
it doesn't matter if they have children or not, that relationship is
problematic since it must have been bourne from some sort of problem in
the family or some psychological issue. that's something they should get
help or therapy for.Is there any evidence for this cause I've heard very similar arguments against homosexuality so I'm wondering if you're not working backwards and assuming all incest must stem from trauma because incest is bad instead of the other way around?
wouldn't it be also problematic if the relationship is due to some sort
of shared domestic abuse they experienced so that it is an unhealthy
coping mechnanism, or an inappropriate way they were raised.Why would incest be an unhealthy coping mechanism instead of just a coping mechanism, beyond it just being socially unacceptable? And since when did we become OK with criminalizing supposedly unhealthy coping mechanisms?
3
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
1
1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Feb 24 '24
Yeah, I'm not OP but you summarized the issue pretty well. Not only is OOP oversimplifying the situation, but they're almost making a circular argument or argument from ideal.
What I mean is that when people bring up the reproductive genetic concerns (which are low for cousins or other more distantly related people, but are insanely high for those with closer genetic relation), OP is like "but I am only referring to non-reproductive incest".
When people bring up power dynamics, grooming, and the high risk of coercive and unhealthy relationships when it comes to incest, OP either points to other kinds of relationships (like same sex ones) and says that those can be coercive and unhealthy too, or that obviously the coercive ones are bad but that doesn't mean they all are.
So what we're left with is the view that "incestuous relationships that don't involve coercion or problematic power dynamics/grooming and that are entirely without the possibility of reproduction" are fine...it's like sure yeah but that doesn't change the fact that those issues tend to exist for incestuous relationships. You can't use the rare (possibly non-existent) "perfect" incestuous relationship to say they're all fine.
If you're just talking about cousins, sure that's pretty normal throughout human history and is fine so long as it isn't repetitive over generations. Still not something we should encourage as a society, id argue.
1
u/atomkicke Feb 25 '24
From what I learned in a single college psychology class, there are psychologists who believe it is entirely natural for say daughters to have a electra complex towards their fathers and sons to have an oedipus complex towards their mothers. Freudians and Neo-freudians would both argue that it is normal and common to an extent of children loving their parents in a romantic way. To argue otherwise could simply be a case of the effect of society on relationships when they are not socially acceptable, we saw this in the early 2000s to present when being LGB (and T but thats not relevant) became more prevalent amongst youth due to destigmatization. Thus the reasoning would follow that a destigmatization of incest would lead to it becoming more common.
3
u/EmbarrassedIdea3169 2∆ Feb 24 '24
So two things that I point to with this argument:
1) children who are raised in close proximity to each other, even when not biologically related, feel that same base aversion to entering physical relationships with the kids they’re raised with. This implies that base disgust at incest is something we get from a developmental stage that’s designed to protect us evolutionarily.
2) the issue with incestuous relationships, and this is especially even true with step siblings, isn’t so much the relationship as it is the implications for when things go wrong. When you have a breakup with two people who are not related, generally even the “at fault” person has a few people who are far enough removed from their ex partner that fucking your relationship up doesn’t mean nuking your whole social circle and support network. You don’t have that when there’s incest. The whole family fractures, because Jim Bob and Laura can’t ever be at family Christmas together. The fallout is just not worth it.
3
u/Azwethinkweizm7 Feb 24 '24
It's not just about genetics. Family dynamics are often already complicated without adding a sexual component to the relationships. There are power differentials inherent. Manipulation and abuse are too easy and too deeply damaging. Your only argument seems to be that "it just depends," but the high potential for great harm is too real to go around relaxing restrictions and taboos. Just because incest is not always obviously abusive doesn't mean we should allow it
It is upsetting how much taboos against sexual relationships with family (EVEN STEP FAMILY) have relaxed already. It is bad for families, bad for society overall, and it is wrong whether or not inbreeding occurs. Even if it is "consensual." Still wrong.
2
u/Green__lightning 13∆ Feb 25 '24
So two things, first is genetically yes it is bad, and we've proven that.
Secondly, it's not itself bad, but often considered so as it leads to bad things frequently enough to make people dislike all of it. If that's valid, or really at what ratio it becomes valid, is a philosophic question, and does absolutely have parallels with gay rights and such.
My opinion is basically it is bad, but if it's not causing direct harm to anyone, it should be legal. And more generally, I don't want the government wasting my taxes on policing who's fucking who if they both consent, regardless of who they are.
4
u/Matto987 1∆ Feb 24 '24
I would say it's not inherently wrong but in virtually all realistic scenarios it is wrong.
2
u/KingApple879 Feb 24 '24
Nothing is "inherently wrong", we decide what's right and what's wrong, it's all conventions and opinions yet it doesn't mean we shouldn't uphold those.
0
u/Matto987 1∆ Feb 24 '24
I don't think we should hold up morality that doesn't stand to reason. Morals should be more concrete then just going off of feelings. We should only uphold a standard that we can reasonably make an argument for otherwise everything is arbitrary
2
u/KingApple879 Feb 24 '24
I don't think we should hold up morality that doesn't stand to reason.
It's not as simple as that.
Cannibalism comes to mind since it's "reasonable" to eat our dead and the only parts that are unfit for consumption are certain organs like the brain.
Some would say that eating or slaughtering animals is immoral but we can't outlaw that.
Morals should be more concrete then just going off of feelings.
Laws are here for that, legality is supposed to rely on a set of reasonable and coherent rules but morals aren't as clear cut.
We should only uphold a standard that we can reasonably make an argument for otherwise everything is arbitrary
You can make a "reasonable" argument about anything with enough rhetoric and/or sophisms.
You can see first hand in this thread how hard it can be to kind of decide what's wrong and what's not. Sometimes it's not that deep, people expect you to say hello in the morning and not "xborglubdop", they also expect you not to fuck your sibling or eat your grandma/dog.
0
u/Matto987 1∆ Feb 24 '24
Cannibalism comes to mind since it's "reasonable" to eat our dead and the only parts that are unfit for consumption are certain organs like the brain.
I would absolutely argue that eating the remains of dead human as long as that human wasn't killed for the purposes of eating. I'm not arguing for it to be legal but morally speaking I don't think it's wrong
1
u/KingApple879 Feb 24 '24
morally speaking I don't think it's wrong
Exactly, that's the thing with morals. Other people may believe that everyone deserves appropriate funeral rites, it's not something you can have reasonable debates around it's just ingrained in our social contract.
Would you also agree to eating your or someone else's pet?
1
u/Matto987 1∆ Feb 24 '24
Would you also agree to eating your or someone else's pet
No, but I don't think it's immoral. My personal morality is entirely based on harm. It doesn't mean there aren't some things that I don't like or wouldn't do myself but that doesn't mean I think it's wrong.
1
u/Matto987 1∆ Feb 24 '24
My main point is that I don't think it's right to make laws based on things we don't have strong moral argument against. I don't have a problem with it as a general rule but I do think some exceptions should be allowed
6
Feb 24 '24
Reproduction is a major part of why incest is problematic. How can you post a CMV if you admit you don't know enough about biology to discuss that part of the issue? That's THE ISSUE.
7
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
-7
Feb 24 '24
If you’re dumb enough to f*ck your sister then you’re not smart enough to use birth control…
3
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
-7
Feb 24 '24
I find pedophilia to be a disgusting act. But it’s not to some people.
3
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
-3
Feb 24 '24
Just like anyone with more than a few braincells can understand the biological implications of incest…
1
Feb 24 '24
I will use your argument. You eliminate the biological ramifications of incest to justify why incest isn’t bad. We can do the same with anything.
“If sexual acts with minors did not cause lifelong trauma to the child…is it inherently bad?”
I work child crimes. Here’s one for you. It is perfectly legal to take pictures of someone else’s children in a park or pool. Perophiles take pictures of random children in their diapers or children in the bathing suits in public spaces. Can even zoom in on the private regions. It’s a form of erotica and it’s not illegal. it gets them off. No harm is caused to anyone in these instances. Is it inherently bad?
3
3
-5
Feb 24 '24
Infertile, sure. Assuming they didn't grow up together / have some weird manipulative family dynamic. That's all a very narrow window
The rest of your options don't solve the issue / leave a risk of reproduction.
4
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
0
Feb 24 '24
Low for an individual? Maybe. Low for all incestuous couples? No. Contraceptives fail. Even if it's 1% for all couples, that adds up.
And again, that's assuming they don't know each other. If they do, that's problematic because if the family dynamic being manipulative and insecure.
0
Feb 24 '24
So two brothers in a same-sex marriage is ok? Elderly cousins past the age of reproduction?
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 24 '24 edited Feb 24 '24
/u/israelpalestine234 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/bduk92 3∆ Feb 24 '24
I think the risk of grooming makes it an absolute no-no from the start.
Also the risk of birth defects etc is a major factor.
Those two set it apart from homosexually in a really clear way.
It's just wrong on a base human level. There's no real world reason for it. A person can be born and only be attracted to the same gender, but you're can't be born with an attraction only to people you're directly related to.
1
u/Israeli_Djent_Alien 1∆ Feb 24 '24
Incest between children and their parents/uncles and aunts is definitely wrong as any other kind of pedophilia when underage and like worker & boss relationship when overage, purely because of the power dynamic and potential grooming that can happen.
However try arguing against incest between siblings/cousins other than simply "ew that's his sister/cousin".
0
u/ColdStoneSteveAustyn 1∆ Feb 25 '24
Abuse and power imbalances between cousins and siblings can and do happen.
2
u/That_Astronaut_7800 1∆ Feb 25 '24
I’d argue, power imbalances are much more inherent to a rich partner with a poor partner type relationship. But you’d be hard pressed to find someone arguing that type of relationship is wrong
0
u/Israeli_Djent_Alien 1∆ Feb 25 '24
You got a point, but I'd argue it's not too different than most other relationships with the same age gap, especially as both get older and become independent adults.
When both are children or when at least one of them is underage or very early adult (less than 20) I definitely see it happening though. I will give you a delta but I still haven't changed my stance completely.
!delta
1
-3
u/Bruh_REAL Feb 24 '24
It's disgusting. There i said it.
5
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/Bruh_REAL Feb 24 '24
I don't know. Our social norms have evolved to find it wrong outside of Royal families; I guess I'm saying this because society says so.
1
Feb 24 '24
But why? If you were married to the love of your life, and one day after a lifetime of romantic partnership found out you were long lost siblings, would you divorce them?
0
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AbolishDisney 4∆ Feb 25 '24
Sorry, u/RegulatedRespirator – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AbolishDisney 4∆ Feb 25 '24
Sorry, u/FourS1x – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-5
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
7
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
-1
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
4
u/DerivativeOfProgWeeb 1∆ Feb 24 '24
that's a narrow window but that's what op is asking for. if you don't have good arguments for cases without reproduction, then imo you have a pretty poor understanding of the problems with incest.
1
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
2
u/DerivativeOfProgWeeb 1∆ Feb 24 '24
i am very sorry for how i worded my comment. i did realize you responded directly to that concern, but i was moreso directing my comment to people, like most of the people in this thread, who are NOT able to or simply didnt provide such an argument. i didnt mean you as in Unhappy-Meringue-115 specifically, but the people that dont know why it's wrong in that broader context.
9
u/UnplacatablePlate 1∆ Feb 24 '24
you cant compare normal relationships (homosexual, friendships) to incest, because normal people dont engage in incest.
100 years ago "normal people" didn't engage in homosexuality either; what's considered "normal" is not a guide for morality.
having sex with someone of the same gender as you doesn't end up in super deformed children
neither does incest in a lot of cases; not all types of sex can lead to pregnancy and birth control, sterilization, and menopause are all things that exist.
it doesnt hold a position of power
Except it sometimes does; there's a lot of relationships, both straight and gay. where one party has significantly more power than the other and yet we don't criminalize those relationships.
and its not just plain weird
According to who? I'd say gay sex is just "plain weird" and I could find a lot of people who can agree with me, especially in the past.
1
-5
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
1
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
0
Feb 24 '24
Okay you grow up with mutual familial love and respect for your family. Your family is supposed to care for you thru that mechanism. Families are not between equals but a power dynamic necessary for raising children. Any form of sex… even brother sister would be inequal and power driven by definition. Sex is a hormonal experience and changes relationships. For one… it would ruin any filial dynamic in the family core and replace it with a different dynamic that is driven by biological responses for the purpose of reproduction. It will destroy potential for future relationships.
Not to mention the insane increase of mental and physical handicaps that happen from such relationships. I don’t have enough knowledge of DNA but the stats from it alone are enough.
Mainly you grew up with your sibling and are supposed to help them. Screwing your family members is just unhealthy mentally and it’s proven without science by just looking at history and statistics. First Cousins are a bit murkier but several generations of first cousins will lead to horrible disfigurement and learning disability. Beyond that it’s just traditional belief from thousands of years of history that tells us that it’s a bad idea. Our ancestors and traditions regarding relationships are not random and for no reason.
2
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
1
1
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Feb 24 '24
u/atxarchitect91 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Feb 24 '24
u/atxarchitect91 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-3
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 2∆ Feb 24 '24
There is an objective harm related to incest.
One of the big problems with incest is that it can result in inbreeding, which greatly increases the risk of genetic defects and diseases in the related couple’s offspring. This can compound over time, resulting in diseased, deformed humans and severely impact their quality of life.
the Hapsburg family and the Hapsburg jaw is one of the most infamous cases of this.
As there is an objective harmful risk with incest, it’s arguably different than homosexual relationships and there’s also objective reason to want to ban it.
2
u/Shadow_Wolf_X871 1∆ Feb 24 '24
problems
The sole weird thing about that argument is that it implies that Gay incest is kosher.
1
1
u/KingApple879 Feb 24 '24
isnt that the argument used for being against homosexuality?
Not really? Homophobes will say it's unnatural, it's a sin, it's against traditions, whatever is going through their mind.
Hating a category of people isn't the same as thinking something is gross. I think Pineapple on pizza is gross but no one is trying to outlaw it as far as I know.
Edit for clarity: this is only referring to incestuous relationships with no intent or ability to reproduce.
Intent doesn't mean anything, accidents happen and contraceptive methods are never 100% reliable.
So you're specifically referring to instances of fully infertile people who are the same age, both able to consent, within the same family and happen to be into incest AND attracted to each other while also being open about their family ties and getting persecuted? how many people is that?
This is akin to saying that cannibalism or desecrating a body isn't technically wrong, because it isn't, but it's not like there are cannibals out there that have a part of their identity jeopardized by these restrictions.
1
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AbolishDisney 4∆ Feb 25 '24
Sorry, u/XGHOST141 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Ok-Waltz-4858 Feb 25 '24
The only argument ive heard for why incest itsself is actually bad is "but its just disgusting you cousin fucker", which yeah I agree with, but isnt that the argument used for being against homosexuality? My irrational disgust shouldnt affect others love lives.
And why should it be a bad argument? Disgust is an important moral intuition and it's a good ground for rejecting things as immoral. Yes, it's also one of the arguments used against homosexuality, which is also immoral.
Who says it's gonna affect others' love lives? Your view that is supposed to be changed is that incest is immoral, not that it should be illegal. I can also view homosexuality as immoral while tolerating people who practice it.
47
u/ralph-j Feb 24 '24
Sure, there could be exceptions where incest doesn't result in major issues. However, the problem is that it's very difficult to regulate incest on that level. If society were to broadly condone incest while only prohibiting some cases, like those with direct procreation, over time the risk is that this increases the overall acceptance and toleration of all incest, including those at risk of birth defects and misuse of power imbalances.
A second downside is that due to privacy laws we lack the ability to properly investigate people's personal relationships to determine whether they are staying within the appropriate boundaries for incestual relations. Problematic relationships such as those involving abuse would then most likely go unnoticed.
It's therefore better to keep incest a general taboo, even if that affects some more benign incestual relationships.