Incest

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am very glad that there is now a generally open attitude towards sexuality here, and most take anything that is consentual and involving only the practicioners as acceptable.

Incest however seems to be a sticking point for many people who have otherwise supported sexual liberation. Are there any specific oppinions out there regarding incest? I have a few comments to make, but they would be best made once the ball is already rolling.

[Dyst]

I hope my fears for your views on this subject is unjustified...

Incest however seems to be a sticking point for many people who have otherwise supported sexual liberation.

Do you know anyone that has ever, actually, been abused by incest? I do, and she would call it the absolute opposite of "sexual liberation".

Maybe for the old perverts doing it, they may be quite positive to it. But I don't give a rats ass about those filthy fuckers, to be honest.

EDIT: Oh, sorry I was rather speaking of child molesting, forgot these are two different subjects, perhaps.

[Sentinel]

If two consenting adults want to have a sexual relationship, no one simply has the right to interfere in my opinion. Even if the people in question are related. Why would that change anything?

But if manipulating or forcing of some kind comes into the picture, the scenario is naturally different. That can, of course, be hard to recognize. But my conclusion is: incest between adults is ok, while child molesting is definitely condemnable of course.

[RebelOutcast]

Good question, It's also one which I've never really considered before.
From a medical point of view children produced from incest have a higher likelihood of having a congenital diesease such as haemophillia, they may also have other conditions.
Socially, incest would cause big problems, and I'm sure you can imagine these.
Ethically I see no problem with incest, and the only rules against it are written by the church(and other religious governing bodies) and these religious rules have influenced the policy in most countries.
Personally I would never commit incest, however I see no problem against it.

**EDIT** after seeing other replies, I'd like to mention that incest can be happen between siblings, step-brothers and sisters whose parents have married and step mothers and sons, to name but a few combinations.

[BOZG]

I'm in agreement with The Sentinel on this one.

On the issue of health issues surrounding incestual relationship, does anyone have any actual figures on the likelihood of genitic deformities or abnormalities in comparison to non-incestual relationships? I was under the impression that the risk factor is massively lower than most people realise.

[Dyst]

I have heard it is pretty high. Of course depending on how close the family is to yours, etc.

But just look at the royalties. Most of them are suffering from some condition or another.

[RebelOutcast]

I imagine the statistics are quite low, however you only have to inherit one faulty dominate allele, or two faulty reccessive alleles in a gene to cause problems. In cases of incest the two individuals may both have the faulty recessive gene and a child has a 25% chance of inheriting both and therefore having an disease.

**EDIT** I've heard stories about the inhabitants of Tazmania, which may or may not be true, that inbreeding has caused problems there. Can anyone credit/discredit this?

[Hegemonicretribution]

To be fair people have said that when it is consentual they have little problem with it, but I would ask yourselves why you made this specific ammendment to your acceptance? Is the consentual nature of a sexual act not a qualifier for its acceptability in all other cases also?

I find this quite interesting personally, because it is fairly consitantly frowned upon around the globe. Many people sight that children resulting from incest will face higher levels of abnormality, and I can see the reasoning behind this. I would wonder though, whether or not this is largely reflective of a society that rejects incest a-priori?

There are countless conditions which can affect the life of a child that can be passed on from what is seen as "normal" adult relations. Think back to ghighschool genetics, rebel outcast has the basic jist.

[Sentinel]

To be fair people have said that when it is consentual they have little problem with it, but I would ask yourselves why you made this specific ammendment to your acceptance?

Because it would be wrong, almost fascistoid, to interfere. Trying to have a materialist approach to this, as to everything, I reject any "moral" reasons to do so.

Many people sight that children resulting from incest will face higher levels of abnormality, and I can see the reasoning behind this.

So can I. Having children with very close relatives should not be encouraged, these should be warned and given information of the possible consequences.

Should they still choose to, there is little society can do to stop them. There is of course always the possibility of abortion should the child be severely disadvantaged.

Adoption would be a better option for these couples, in my opinion, should they desire children.

[coda]

I haven't heard about Tazmania. But Pitcairn Island, the island the mutineers of the ship the "Bounty" has been studied to some extent.


the fascinating story is: after the Bounty was mutineered by Fletcher Christian and went back to Tahiti, some of the other mutineers returned to Bligh while Christian and 9 other mutineers, along with 6 Polynesian men and 12 Polynesian woman and 1 baby, stayed on the Bounty and looked for a new uninhabited island to settle. They found Pitcairn in 1790.

Three years later, due to infighting over the woman and the land, five of the mutineers were killed , including Christian and all the Polynesian men. Leaving two mutiny survivors up to 1800, where the mutineer, Ned Young died of asthma. The remaining mutineer, John Adams lived on the island of Pitcairn for 40 years after the mutiny.


The current population of 50 people are the descendents of six mutineers, with the exception of six people, who are relatives of a preacher and schoolteacher who came to the island.

http://www.lareau.org/pitc.html

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by The Sentinel@Mar 7 2006, 08:52 PM
Because it would be wrong, almost fascistoid, to interfere. Trying to have a materialist approach to this, as to everything, I reject any "moral" reasons to do so.

Sorry, this may well have came off wrong. What I meant is that with reagards to all other issues people here don't make the specific point of it having to be consentual each time; it is seen as self evident.

Keiza made a link directly to cases of rape, despite the second part of my first sentence reading;

and most take anything that is consentual and involving only the practicioners as acceptable.

I was just wondering about such an approach.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Socially, incest would cause big problems, and I'm sure you can imagine these.

Please elaborate.

[encephalon]

From what I understand, the genetic defects that we suppose to occur happen through a long line of incestuous relationships, not just one. That is, if say a brother and sister have a child, the risks are pretty low that a huge genetic defect will result; but if their mother and father were also related, the risk increases.

We should also understand that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is not a good practice. The less genetic variation a species exhibits, the more susceptible that species is to unexpected calamities.. disease, etc.

Also, it should be noted that while all cultures have some sort of taboo against incest, the taboo ranges in what's actually considered incest. First cousin marriages, for instance, generally aren't looked down upon by humanity as a whole as much as they are in western culture. Some cultures find nothing wrong with a niece and an uncle mating. Some cultures also have incesutuous relationships that are okay, but only in certain situations.

But I imagine that the "moral" aspect of the taboo is closely tied to our instinct for survival of the species, and is mostly just an extension of it. There are very few, if any other, taboos that come as close to being universal across cultures.

[Noah]

If cousins marry is that a form of incests?

Because both my mum's cousins married each other...which makes their kids...something to me...

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by encephalon@Mar 7 2006, 08:51 PM
But I imagine that the "moral" aspect of the taboo is closely tied to our instinct for survival of the species, and is mostly just an extension of it. There are very few, if any other, taboos that come as close to being universal across cultures.

I don't think the use of sociobiology is particularly good practice amongst the left.

Incest would likely be a minor occurance, even when stigma is reduced/removed. I think that sex will become a less romanticised act as a whole, but that child bearing relationships will be largely non-incestuous. A certain degree of variation gebe pool diversity is tollerable, when you consider that population growth compensates for that.

I realise you meant little by your comment, but I assumed that sociobiological approaches were frowned upon by the left?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I saw a program on TV about this, it was very balanced an did not project any religious values.

However. In the program they were talking about siblings. They noted that brothers and sisters release smells from their body that makes it very hard for their brother/sister to think of them as a sexual partner.

Kinda our way of protecting our children from having real bad problems.

[encephalon]

I don't think the use of sociobiology is particularly good practice amongst the left.

Incest would likely be a minor occurance, even when stigma is reduced/removed. I think that sex will become a less romanticised act as a whole, but that child bearing relationships will be largely non-incestuous. A certain degree of variation gebe pool diversity is tollerable, when you consider that population growth compensates for that.

I realise you meant little by your comment, but I assumed that sociobiological approaches were frowned upon by the left?

If you take biology out of the question of social mores, then what do you have? You have arbitrary systems of conduct.

I'm not saying that biology determines all aspects of social organization, but it's foolish to think that individual biology doesn't affect society. Our social structure differs from that of other primates as a direct consequence of our biological makeup.

In searching for the truth about anything, it's bad practice, no matter who you are, to automatically discount or "frown upon" anything. In fact, if there's a true biological reason that communism/anarchism isn't possible, then why exactly would you try to fool yourself? Of course, evidence points to the contrary--that is, humans are genetically coded to cooperate.

While some of us may find it distasteful, certain social constructs can stem from our biology, and some probably do. Actually, and I'm positive that many here disagree, I'm a determinist--I am wholeheartedly convinced that each individual is the product of his biology and environment, and society is a kind of meta-organism (perhaps bad word choice, but you get the idea).

Society is built of individual people.
Individual people are built of organs and tissues.
Organs and tissues are built of cells.
Cells are built of molecules.
Molecules are built of atoms.
Atoms are built of quarks.
Quarks are built of muons, puons, etc.
And so on.

I would go as far as saying that, while it isn't entirely comprehensible to us, that the nature of physics itself directly affects the manner in which humans interact in social form. To say that biological processes don't somehow factor into our social fabric is like saying biological processes don't factor into how ants interact in a nest.

I'm usually not one to use quotes to push a point, but this is one of my favorites, and I think it's important that none of us forget it (my bold).

If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be. -- Karl Marx

I would merely add that it should be a ruthless criticism of everything, and we shouldn't back away from something merely because we don't want to hear it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I was perhaps a little vague, so appologies. What I meant to imply that we should frown upon sociobiology being used to justify many micro traits.

I agree completely that certain genes cause predisposition to an individual's choice of action. What I don't agree with is this being a sole factor, and I accept that socialisation plays a larger role. I would not dismiss an athlete because they were female, they may well have trained hard, and be far more of an athlete than I am as a man.

When you let genetic factors become a major player in the role for answer you will find that the answers are often subjective.

Sociobiology has been used to justify rape and incest as traits inherent in our society. I am not saying that this is the only use, it is not, but it a probable result. The fact is that when it comes to specifics, few scientists agree on many of the more detailed influences.

As a general guide, it can actually give a fuller picture. However I would not feel comfortable citing it as the factor:

But I imagine that the "moral" aspect of the taboo is closely tied to our instinct for survival of the species, and is mostly just an extension of it.

Is perhaps relying on bad science?

It is implied that society plays a role in aversion, but you claim the avoidance is biological? If this is a survival instinct, why is homosexuality common practice? Would this not also be part of the same instincts?

I am just not comfortable around such subjective stuff, especially when it is far from conclusive. Of course I am all ears and open to be educated, I just saw it as difficult to presuppose.

[apathy maybe]

I agree with the concessus of this thread, that is, what consenting peoples do is their own business.

I will also add a quick bit about Tasmania (yes that is an s, not a z). It is common 'knowledge' among many other Australians that Tasmanians are either incestial (sp?) or have a breeding population that is too small. This results in birth defects such as two heads.

Firstly, this is bull shit. Yes Tasmania has a small population compared to the rest of Australia (less then half a million), however considering that is about 50-100 times more then before European settlement, I do not think that there is anything to worry about. Also there is a large amount of mainlanders who come to Tasmania.

Where this myth may of come from is interesting. One idea that I know of is that it comes from an iodine deficiency.

Originally posted by http://www.vegansociety.com/html/foo...ion/iodine.php
Iodine is vital for good thyroid function, which in turn is essential for health. Iodine deficiency during pregnancy and early infancy can result in cretinism (irreversible mental retardation and severe motor impairments). In adults low iodine intake (or very high intakes) can cause hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism can manifest as low energy levels, dry or scaly or yellowish skin, tingling and numbness in extremities, weight gain, forgetfulness, personality changes, depression, anaemia, and prolonged and heavy periods in women. Goiter, an enlarged thyroid gland visible between the Adam's apple and the collar bone, is often present. Hypothyroidism can also cause carpal tunnel syndrome and Raynaud's phenomenon. Hypothyroidism can lead to significant increases in cholesterol levels and homocysteine levels is implicated in about 10% of cases of high cholesterol levels. Correcting hypothyroidism can lead to a 30% drop in cholesterol and homocysteine levels.

Thus the two heads comes from goiter.

[TC]

I think the great majority of cases of inter-generational incest are either rape, or involve impared or compromised consent, some degree of coersion, against the younger person involved, and really thats the primary reason for laws against incest. The assumption is that probably one of the people involved was being coerced because within a family power dynamics are so stratified. Its like a drug dealer having sex with their druggies, shrinks having sex with their in-patients, prison guards having sex with prisoners, if not arguably worse then those examples. And i think everyone can agree that thats a totally legitimate problem to have with it.


The other secondary issue that applies to the disgust at incest between people aren't in a compromising position with regard to the other is, frankly the same issue as with homophobia i think. Its evolutionary maladaptive to fall in love with someone who you're incapable of reproducing with (people of the same sex or prepubecent people or very old people) or someone who would be statistically more likely to produce unhealthy offspring (people who are closely related, people who themselves have congenital defects). It then makes perfect sense that when most people think of doing anything sexual with a close relative, they find the idea gross, but then they also find the idea of doing something sexual with a member of their own sex, or a prepubecent child to also be quite gross.

In saying this, i'm trying to offer an explaination of why most people find incest disgusting, i'm not offering it as a justification or saying that it ought to be that way. Nature does not provide any justification or meaning or value to human life, and reproduction is not a goal or a purpose of living except when people decide that it is to the, values and morality and ethics come from people and society not from nature...so simply because something is evolutionary disadventagious (so are anti-biotics on a species level) doesn't mean its inherently wrong, it simply explains why a lot of people might irrationally feel it to be wrong. (obviously there are additional, rational reasons to think that sex with pre-pubecent children is wrong, i just included it as an example to illistrate the point.)

Basically though, closed minded people often take their own personal tastes as to what they find gross or disgusting (which are probably as common as they are for evolutionary reasons, but that doesn't make them more or less valid then less common tastes) and declare them to be universial values for everyone, arbitrarily elevating tastes to the level of morality. If this is wrong with homosexuality then clearly its wrong with consensual incest between people of a similar age.



As an aside, has anyone seen the film The Dreamers (twin brother/sister couple, french communists during the paris riots). It seemed creepy and kinda gross but not exploitive or wrong.