Taboo Topics

[Diageo]

I thought it would be interesting to talk about a few topics that people consider taboo, to see if they should remain taboo for a good reason, or if they have no ground to stand on. So we can start with one topic, and after it's got enough discussion we can move to another, or create another thread. Whatever works.

 

Incest

Incest to most people is seen as disgusting. While there may be cultural reasons and religious reasons, I would say that the main reason is evolutionary. The sense of disgust was born to be an aversive response to things that are harmful to humans. As such, because inbreeding decreases hybrid vigour because of the higher probability of homozygous recessive alleles being passed through, which are generally bad. As such, those who were disgusted by incest were more likely to survive. Additionally, those who were more inclined to incestuous behaviour were less likely to survive.

 

Another way that evolution has sought to decrease incest is the Westermarck effect. The smell of family members who are raised in close proximity to each other at young ages will deter sexual attraction.

 

Incest is seen as morally wrong enough that it is illegal in many places. But unless there's other reasons besides the lower inclusive fitness of the behaviour, it should theoretically be fine when no potentially reproductive sex occurs. Be it because one of the incestuous people is infertile, either by choice or not, or because it is a homosexual couple, there is no danger of birth defects.

 

So what do you think? Is incest wrong?

[Blade]

I dont understand why we are having a discussion about incest.

 

Anyone who intentionally shags a family member should be detained under the Mental Health Act.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I thought it would be interesting to talk about a few topics that people consider taboo, to see if they should remain taboo for a good reason, or if they have no ground to stand on. So we can start with one topic, and after it's got enough discussion we can move to another, or create another thread. Whatever works.

 

Incest

Incest to most people is seen as disgusting. While there may be cultural reasons and religious reasons, I would say that the main reason is evolutionary. The sense of disgust was born to be an aversive response to things that are harmful to humans. As such, because inbreeding decreases hybrid vigour because of the higher probability of homozygous recessive alleles being passed through, which are generally bad. As such, those who were disgusted by incest were more likely to survive. Additionally, those who were more inclined to incestuous behaviour were less likely to survive.

 

Another way that evolution has sought to decrease incest is the Westermarck effect. The smell of family members who are raised in close proximity to each other at young ages will deter sexual attraction.

 

Incest is seen as morally wrong enough that it is illegal in many places. But unless there's other reasons besides the lower inclusive fitness of the behaviour, it should theoretically be fine when no potentially reproductive sex occurs. Be it because one of the incestuous people is infertile, either by choice or not, or because it is a homosexual couple, there is no danger of birth defects.

 

So what do you think? Is incest wrong?

 

I see nothing morally wrong with incest. The key in any relationship is consent; if two family members both want it, I cannot fathom any moral reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. Reproduction should of course be discouraged if the risk of genetic defects is estimated to be high, but other than that I see no problems.

 

(Great idea for a thread, by the way! )

[Kav]

This topic weirds me out way too much to comment.

[Cube]

I see nothing morally wrong with incest. The key in any relationship is consent; if two family members both want it, I cannot fathom any moral reasons why it shouldn't be allowed.

 

In terms of morality: for the same reason that teachers can't have sex with students. Especially in younger (but above legal age) people. Family members are often too much of an "authority" figure for the younger person to truly consent.

 

On top of that, having it as an accepted practice will cause younger kids to experiment with their siblings (yes, it happens now, but it's extremely rare), and they will make mistakes and unwanted pregnancies will occur.

[Fierce_LiNk]

In terms of morality: for the same reason that teachers can't have sex with students. Especially in younger (but above legal age) people. Family members are often too much of an "authority" figure for the younger person to truly consent.

 

Wizard, I just logged in to post this exact same thing.

 

If this type of thing were deemed to be ok, it could potentially be giving the all-clear for Uncles/Fathers to start abusive relationships with other family members. A bit of a generalisation to some extent.

 

Brother to brother, sister to sister, though...it's interesting, since Diageo's point about not being able to reproduce is sound. The main downside I can think of is the social stigma that surrounds it. It would lead to the family as a whole receiving a lot of hate, possibly violence, or being ostracised from the community.

[Diageo]

Wizard, I just logged in to post this exact same thing.

 

If this type of thing were deemed to be ok, it could potentially be giving the all-clear for Uncles/Fathers to start abusive relationships with other family members. A bit of a generalisation to some extent.

 

Brother to brother, sister to sister, though...it's interesting, since Diageo's point about not being able to reproduce is sound. The main downside I can think of is the social stigma that surrounds it. It would lead to the family as a whole receiving a lot of hate, possibly violence, or being ostracised from the community.

 

The social stigma is a problem for things like homosexuality too, should that mean they shouldn't be with who they want to be.

 

Of course there's still the problem of consent. No one would be advocating for paedophilia and it would still be illegal for parents and uncles to advance on children. Is the danger of mistakes occurring between siblings not the same as if they were inclined to experiment with their friends?

[MoogleViper]

I dont understand why we are having a discussion about incest.

 

Anyone who intentionally shags a family member should be detained under the Mental Health Act.

 

Blade stated it. No supportive argument needed. FACT.

 

Discussion over.

 

This topic weirds me out way too much to comment.

 

Except for this comment right here?

[Sheikah]

 

Except for this comment right here?

 

Oh man, you beat me to it.

[Fierce_LiNk]

The social stigma is a problem for things like homosexuality too, should that mean they shouldn't be with who they want to be.

 

Of course there's still the problem of consent. No one would be advocating for paedophilia and it would still be illegal for parents and uncles to advance on children. Is the danger of mistakes occurring between siblings not the same as if they were inclined to experiment with their friends?

 

I was waiting for somebody to bring up the homosexual argument.

I think society as a whole was a lot more "accepting" towards homosexuals as it suddenly wasn't a terribly uncommon thing any more. I remember growing up and even in school I saw attitudes changing towards it. Some of my best friends are lesbians, one of my good school friends is gay. It was suddenly becoming more common and so it was "easier" to accept. (of course, not suggesting that society rapidly changed their attitudes in such a short space of time, but rather that it was becoming increasingly more common to encounter people who were homosexuals).

 

With incest, I've never met anybody who has experience with this. It's not a widely talked about subject, therefore I think society knows a lot less about it and that's why people are hesitant to bring up such a subject or talk about it (as we've seen within about the first 5 posts in this thread). There aren't celebrities coming out and saying, "I love my brother in a sexual way, and that's ok." So, as long as it isn't being talked about or the subject isn't being brought up, it'll never be accepted.

 

As for whether or not it should be accepted: Such a widely contentious issue. I don't really know enough about it to say that it should be accepted morally or lawfully. But, if it ever did become lawful, the first thing I would question would be "harmful" relations between family members such as a mother or father towards their children. Even with wider members such as grandparents or aunties and uncles. There is so much potential there for abuse that I don't think it'll be something we ever see accepted in our lifetime.

 

Blade stated it. No supportive argument needed. FACT.

 

Discussion over.

 

 

 

Except for this comment right here?

 

In fairness, your post wasn't really much better as you haven't put anything into the pot either.

I do understand your intentions, though.

[MoogleViper]

In fairness, your post wasn't really much better as you haven't put anything into the pot either.

I do understand your intentions, though.

 

But I didn't make any comment either way. And certainly not an extreme comment.

 

 

To actually weigh in... I don't know. Part of me agrees that between two consenting adults (with no risk of offspring) it shouldn't be an issue, but another part of me can't accept it as OK.

 

Either way, I certainly don't think we should accept it (and therefore promote it) as a society. But I also think that we shouldn't automatically arrest and persecute anyone for it.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

In terms of morality: for the same reason that teachers can't have sex with students. Especially in younger (but above legal age) people. Family members are often too much of an "authority" figure for the younger person to truly consent.

 

That would definitely need looking into, but I view it as a separate issue entirely, one of consent and authority. I was only talking about the moral question of incest itself.

 

On top of that, having it as an accepted practice will cause younger kids to experiment with their siblings (yes, it happens now, but it's extremely rare), and they will make mistakes and unwanted pregnancies will occur.

 

I hardly think the legality of it is much of a factor in their minds. In fact, if the research is anything to go by, it would still be more unlikely than them experimenting with their friends since people who have grown up together, as mentioned, naturally develop an aversion to sexual interest in each other.

[Goafer]

Meh. You can't help who you're attracted to.

 

Maybe I don't see a major problem with it* because I'm an only child and I just can't get as creeped out about it as those with siblings.

 

*apart from the genetic aspect, which I'd need to see studies on before forming an opinion. Someone just saying "incest always ends up like The Hills Have Eyes" isn't a good enough basis.

[ReZourceman]

Goafer, we have engaged in sexual shenanigans and we look kinda similar. Maybe next time we do it we can roleplay that we are brothers?

 

[Diageo]

A lot of people are talking about issues that would be common with incest but are not necessarily connected. Parent and children relationships would be problematic of course, but because of issues with consent, not issues with incest.

 

I honestly don't think that children would be having an increase in sexual relationships between siblings if it was legal. Children of that age wouldn't even think of legality. And parents are already against young children being sexual in general, so I don't see it as being an issue.

[Goafer]

Goafer, we have engaged in sexual shenanigans and we look kinda similar. Maybe next time we do it we can roleplay that we are brothers?

 

 

 

I pity the imaginary mother that would have to put up with both of us growing up.

[Sheikah]

*apart from the genetic aspect, which I'd need to see studies on before forming an opinion. Someone just saying "incest always ends up like The Hills Have Eyes" isn't a good enough basis.

 

It's really quite dangerous - any recessive genes you have for certain conditions are likely to also be present in your sibling's genome, and when the child gets 2 copies from each parent they'd have that condition.

[Goafer]

It's really quite dangerous - any recessive genes you have for certain conditions are likely to also be present in your sibling's genome, and when the child gets 2 copies from each parent they'd have that condition.

 

Oh yeah, I get that. But I'd need to see stats on it. For example: the odds of passing it on with siblings versus the odds of passing it on with non siblings for various conditions etc.

 

Incest is one of those things I hear plenty of people warning about the genetic consequences, but I've never seen any scientific findings. Admittedly, it's not something I've ever looked for.

[MoogleViper]

Oh yeah, I get that. But I'd need to see stats on it. For example: the odds of passing it on with siblings versus the odds of passing it on with non siblings for various conditions etc.

 

Incest is one of those things I hear plenty of people warning about the genetic consequences, but I've never seen any scientific findings. Admittedly, it's not something I've ever looked for.

 

There's plenty of evidence for it. It's all a case of probability. With first degree relatives (parent/child; brother/sister) you share 50% of your DNA. So every faulty allele you have (which we all have), is far more likely to be passed on.

 

Third degree for example (first cousin, half-aunt/uncle) share 12.5% of DNA. Interestingly, the risk of passing on a genetic disorder for this is (slightly) less than for women over 35.

 

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview

 

The main issue happens when it become common, as it has a knock on effect. This has been the case for lots of royalty, most notable with the Egyptian Pharaohs. In fact due to the common practice of first cousin marriages in Pakistani culture, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to suffer from genetic disorders.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Edited December 23, 2013 by MoogleViper

[The Bard]

In response to the original post I'll say; adducing Evolutionary Psychology for, well, anything is a mistake unless your claim is grounded in an exposition of neural architecture that can be evolutionarily traced to common descendants of recent evolutionary ancestors, or are so basic that most animals have them. In the event that we find similar neural architecture in a select group of extant species of which one is homo sapiens, we have to rule out the possibility of parallel evolution before we hypothesise what the faculty in question evolved for.

 

Evolutionary Psychology, for the large part, unfortunately tends towards pseudoscience. Of course, evolution must undoubtedly explain psychology, but we have no recourse to use it to meaningfully do so, since brains don't fossillise, and any attempt to use the theory without evidence sort of makes a mockery of scientific method and results in boring "just-so" fables.

[Jonnas]

All I'll say on the subject is that, for me, the thought of doing it with a family member disgusts me. It left a bad taste in my mouth when Dexter used that as a plotline, too, so it's not just a matter of blood.

 

I'm all for people living their live the way they want to, but this is something I just can't accept. Flinky also brought up issues regarding a family growing up with such a mindset, too.

 

All that said, it's still a choice, and if nobody's being forced or coerced into it, I suppose there's nothing wrong.

[Diageo]

In response to the original post I'll say; adducing Evolutionary Psychology for, well, anything is a mistake unless your claim is grounded in an exposition of neural architecture that can be evolutionarily traced to common descendants of recent evolutionary ancestors, or are so basic that most animals have them. In the event that we find similar neural architecture in a select group of extant species of which one is homo sapiens, we have to rule out the possibility of parallel evolution before we hypothesise what the faculty in question evolved for.

 

Evolutionary Psychology, for the large part, unfortunately tends towards pseudoscience. Of course, evolution must undoubtedly explain psychology, but we have no recourse to use it to meaningfully do so, since brains don't fossillise, and any attempt to use the theory without evidence sort of makes a mockery of scientific method and results in boring "just-so" fables.

 

It's a science as anything else is. Using the scientific method, empirical testing. Hypothesising, testing and then creating theories. You don't need fossilised brains to create hypotheses based on the literature, and then to test such hypotheses either on animal models or humans themselves. Evolutionary psychology is as much a science as regular psychology, with the same limitations as any social science. You don't need fossilised brains as evidence. You can look at the DNA itself and evidence of certain behaviours from things that don't decompose easily.

 

All I'll say on the subject is that, for me, the thought of doing it with a family member disgusts me. It left a bad taste in my mouth when Dexter used that as a plotline, too, so it's not just a matter of blood.

 

I'm all for people living their live the way they want to, but this is something I just can't accept. Flinky also brought up issues regarding a family growing up with such a mindset, too.

 

All that said, it's still a choice, and if nobody's being forced or coerced into it, I suppose there's nothing wrong.

 

The thought of me doing it with certain friends disgusts me, doesn't mean everyone shouldn't ever do it with their friends does it? In the same vein, I'm sure lots of heterosexuals see having sex with a man disgusting, that's not necessarily a good reason to be against it.

 

And what Flinky brought up were issues of paedophilia, which would still be illegal regardless of how accepted incest is.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Diageo
Automerged Doublepost

[The Bard]

Sure, but examining the DNA, and then hypothesising as to how it came to be that way are two different things. Evolutionary psychology is the description of the development (evolutionary as opposed to ontogenetic) of the brain and its behaviours - things you can't really test for, just make up plausible stories about. When you remove that element what you have are the remaining cognitive sciences.

 

How do you contend with the huge margins for error when you don't have any intermediary stages with which to compare?

 

This is pretty interesting to me since I'm doing a module on Cognitive Sciences and Philosophy of Mind as part of my degree, and there's little consensus on how Evolutionary Psychology (as it departs from the rest of the cognitive sciences) can work within traditional scientific method.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

All I'll say on the subject is that, for me, the thought of doing it with a family member disgusts me. It left a bad taste in my mouth when Dexter used that as a plotline, too, so it's not just a matter of blood.

 

I'm all for people living their live the way they want to, but this is something I just can't accept. Flinky also brought up issues regarding a family growing up with such a mindset, too.

 

All that said, it's still a choice, and if nobody's being forced or coerced into it, I suppose there's nothing wrong.

 

I think it's important to consider that the aversion we feel towards incest isn't caused by its current illegality; rather, it's illegal because we feel a general aversion to it. Making it legal won't suddenly make it widespread or even common. I venture to guess it will remain a fringe thing, and even then there will be rules regarding consent and authority in place to prevent family gatherings from becoming orgies, which is probably the scare scenario people imagine when incest is mentioned. The whole idea is that a pair of consenting adults should be able to be together if they so desire, even if they happen to be blood-related.

[Blade]

I am failing to understand how so many people on here are not disgusted by the thought of incest.