So what's actually so wrong about incest? (75)

1 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-25 08:23 ID:xkCzol4h

To be more specific: What is wrong about a romantic and/or sexual relationship between siblings?

Arguments I've found on my own and my responses:
1) If offspring results, it'll probably have some severe genetic problems. Big deal, don't have kids.

2) It's illegal in most places/Many people will shun you if they know about it. While these are valid practical considerations, I'm more thinking "wrong" as in morally/ethically. These are symptoms of wrongness, not the reasons.

3) It's unnatural. That's what they said about gays too. And not true. Get a male and a female rabbit and watch their offspring.

4) It's weird. What isn't?

5) My Holy Book says it's a no-no. I don't believe in it. Also, see 2). This is another symptom.

6) It will adversely affect the siblings' psychology, due to already established standard sibling relationships. Now this one, if true, could be a good explanation. Anyone here who did some research into this?

And before the jokes start: No, I'm not an inbred hick. I'm just wondering about it. Had an odd dream. No, not of the wet variety.

2 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-25 09:49 ID:RYda+MPC

if both want it.. it's ok i guess. who can stop you.. have your god damn sex.. look at apes.. they fuck their kids for fuck sake.

but making it illegal is just fucking racist.
(not that i want to, or ever have had it)

3 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-25 09:49 ID:Heaven

This is funny because just last night I searched for "近親相姦" on 2channel. Threads were almost 50/50 seperated on the porn boards and the humanities boards.

4 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-25 10:35 ID:6UdFY3fc

I believe it has mostly to do with carrying on rules and taboos, most of them unconciously, that made a whole lot of sense centures, if not milennia ago and secured the survival of the species/race/group whatever.
More specifically, I believe that the origin of the taboo lies within the neccessity of expanding one's family in ancient times. Family back then was all you could remotely rely on. More family members usually meant more people who could protect you or do you favours - and who would actually act mostly decent towards you (as opposed to all others not in your group).

On a bigger scale, families mixing with each other and their members expanding their relationships to other families, tribes, etc. also guaranteed a general kind of social peace. I believe this was one of the foundations of the first tribes/communites making the leap to actual societies and somehow they knew about that and with that introduced the incest taboo.

So yeah, it seems to me it was a major improvement over previous forms of making peace with rivalring tribes (i.e. genocide or assimilation through enslavement) and it was to regarded as such an absolute neccessity that this creeped into the heads of people without them now, thousands of years later, really know all too much about the real pragmatic reasons anymore.

Which isn't all too surprising. Most people cannot give plausible explanations for many moral stigmatas - simply because their inventors never really passed on the explanation for them.

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Incest_versus_exogamy

5 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-25 10:37 ID:Q4pkwEkQ

1) Incorrect. Incestuous children do not have a significant increase in rates of retardation or anything else.

2) Your evaluation is correct.

3) Incest is not only present in nature, but incredibly common.

4) Refer to #3

5) Yeah, again, good evaluation. That's called a 'post hoc' fallacy, btw.

6) I would say that the sibling relationship would have decayed by the time they are having sex. I mean, I feel no attraction to my cousins not because of some moral outlook, but because I see them as my biological cousins.

6 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-25 11:55 ID:P7OxN4yd

>> 1) If offspring results, it'll probably have some severe genetic problems. Big deal, don't have kids.
> 1) Incorrect. Incestuous children do not have a significant increase in rates of retardation or anything else.

Inbreeding always increases the odds of recessive genetic diseases exhibiting themselves. Now, in a single case of inbreeding the odds may not be as high, but it is well known that heavily inbred groups of organisms suffer many more genetic defects - refer to old royal families, for instance.

Now, this part is purely speculation on my part, but it seems to me that this would create an evolutionary pressure away from incest, giving animals an instinct to avoid incest. The societal taboos and moral rules against it could very well just be the result of those instincts.

Leading me to the conclusion: Dumb animals shouldn't practice incest, but intelligent human who know what they're getting into and make sure they don't have children could very well do it, if they can ignore the evolutionary pressure not to. And we're good at doing that.

The psychological side may or may not be significant though, I couldn't tell.

7 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-26 21:20 ID:5WB95BAZ

While not universally taboo, there is at least some associated with even non genetically related people. Cousins through marriage or step-siblings for instance. Also it occurs with friends--"I couldn't date him, he's like a brother to me."

On another note, why would someone producing offspring with higher risk of retardation because of incest be different than a lot of other things. People that know that their offspring might have down syndrome are generally not ostracized for producing such offspring, for example.

I cannot help but to have a negative emotion towards insest in my gut however; I do not know if it is because of society's influence or some intrinsic value.

8 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-26 23:17 ID:Q4pkwEkQ

>>6
The increase in the rate of expression of recessive genes doesn't neccessarily result in retardation. If a population continuously inbreeds with little blood from an outside source, then yes, diseases are likely to show up. A single instance of incest will result in an anomalous trait only in a few cases.

9 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-27 01:46 ID:Q4pkwEkQ

>>8
The reason that two Alabamian family members mating does not instantly produce a retard is because the genes that cause major disorders, as well as most genetic traits in general, are dependent on more than one gene for a trait.

10 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-27 08:00 ID:Heaven

Did anyone of you even study genetics or biology?

11 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-27 10:52 ID:mR6KZmfu

By the way, do you know 1/3 of all couples in the world are incestuous? Mostly first or second cousins, especially in non-Western countries.

>>1

> If offspring results, it'll probably have some severe genetic problems.

Not rly, not so fast. A couple generations won't do anything. This is mostly a myth created by the church. For example, it's much worse and more dangerous to make babies after drinking alcohol, than incest.

> My Holy Book says it's a no-no.

Those are written for the lambs. Since you created this thread, you're a thinking being, so don't worry about what "holy" books say.

>>6
Taboo is not the result of instinct. If incest were so bad, measures against it would have been taken long before apes, just like everything else related to reproduction, the main feature of life.

>>7

> Also it occurs with friends--"I couldn't date him, he's like a brother to me."

Only girls think like this, and this is because, for some reasons, they have two completely independent mindsets of "friends" and "love interests", and for some retarded reason, their loved one is not considered their best friend. I think the way these girls think is majorly fucked up and idiotic, but not really related to incest.

12 Name: bubu 2005-08-27 11:45 ID:Heaven

>>11
not to mention that this taboo is relatively young (too young to be an "instinct", if you ask me). Incestuous marriage, especially between siblings, was common in many western cultures up to the middle ages (and in certain social strata even beyond).

13 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-27 15:18 ID:7iZoptWI

> Taboo is not the result of instinct. If incest were so bad, measures against it would have been taken long before apes, just like everything else related to reproduction, the main feature of life.

Before we continue this argument, maybe somebody should find some hard data on how common incest is among animals in general.

14 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-27 17:28 ID:Q4pkwEkQ

>>13
Happens continuously. Animals cannot distinguish between their family and those of other families.

15 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-27 17:48 ID:62+wrIlL

>>14
I think he was asking for hard data not unfounded assertions...

16 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-27 19:26 ID:mR6KZmfu

>>14

> Animals cannot distinguish between their family and those of other families.

I don't think this is true. I suspect dolphins can.

17 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-28 00:22 ID:7iZoptWI

>>14

You are pretty obviously grossly underestimating animals here. And yes, I was asking for hard data.

18 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-28 06:07 ID:Q4pkwEkQ

>>17
How much intelligence DO you attribute to sea anenomae, moles, and rats? Moreover, I'm not sure how much 'hard data' you could find, but there is no reason to expect animals with intelligences significantly lower than apes or other primates to be able to distinguish their family from those of others. I mean, instincts are programmed biologically; there is no way a gene could code for 'Oh look, that came out of the same hole as me, I'd better not have sex with it.'

19 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-28 09:59 ID:BxGG58eC

>>18
Lol, because animals are just like humans, only dumber, amirite? Because it's not like "simple" animals such as bats or rats have developed complex brain structures to solve specific problems relevant to their lifestyle, like interpreting echolocation or chemical data, right?

Most animals do recognize members of their own litter, if nothing else. The more socially-inclined an animal is, the more likely it is to keep a reference of information on familial relationships. (The more social primates and other mammals, i particular, have lives that sound like soap operas.)

And you think it's hard to program an animal to differentiate members of its species? How easily do you recognize faces? Compared to the problems of mechanics, optics, etc, coding a few brain cells to remember faces, smells, or other data on individuals is a walk in the park.

Incidentally, >7 was correct- there is some part of the human brain that suppresses sexual desire towards those it codes as "family members." This has very little to do with what your mind 'knows' to be family and a lot to do with who you spent most of your time with when you were a small child (up to ~8 seems to be the breaking point, or so I'm told). Incestuous desires within the immediate family are most common- hello, Dr Freud!- among those who saw very little of their siblings/parent/child during that initial period. There is even some interesting examples of failed attempts to raise children together from birth when they are betrothed in an effort to strengthen family bonds- such marriages are inevitably failures to the Nth degree.

Oh? You were talking about incest between cousins and other, more distantly-related members of family? The genetic math is complex and boring, but it comes down to "some cousins are okay and others aren't," at least as far as inbreeding, etc go. And yes, first-generation inbreeding does significantly increase the chances of genetic defects- but the change from 1-in-50,000 to 1-in-25,000, say, is not terribly noticable with one couple. You need a few hundred years of that kind of nonsense (re: the Royal family, Alabama) to see a noticable trend.

20 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-28 16:38 ID:Heaven

>>19

>there is some part of the human brain that suppresses sexual desire towards those it codes as "family members."

The other condition of this idea might be because many of us are inherently disgusted by the things our family does.

For example, if you have that friend with the really hot sister: "Dude, your sister is really hot!" Now, his initial reaction to you is going to be, "No way, man!" partly out of embarassment, partly because of social taboo.

But if you were that guy with the hot sister, chances are that you might find her attractive if she weren't in your family. This is because the family sees all the more intimidate sides of their personalities. She could have a ton of disgusting habits/traits/characteristics that she doesn't reveal to anyone but her family. Or it could be like "cabin fever"; being around her so much causes you to hate said traits even if you didn't hate them immediately.

It is for this reason that your quotation may not only be a brain mechanism but rather conditioning toward your society(?) I'm not sure if I worded the last part correctly.

21 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-30 17:49 ID:Z3tFye2u

>>20
I doubt it. Married couples stay together a lot more than say 15 years.

22 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-30 19:48 ID:Heaven

This thread lacks a lot of research data.

23 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-30 20:42 ID:mR6KZmfu

>>22
We're not researchers, we're bored intarweb nerds

24 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-30 20:47 ID:Heaven

>>23
I'm sorry...

25 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-08-31 18:35 ID:Heaven

>>19
""simple" animals such as bats or rats have developed complex brain structures... interpreting echolocation or chemical data"

I don't see the connection. The concept of a 'family' is nonexistent in many if not most animal species. Interpreting data is not the same as grasping an abstract concept.

Everything else you have said I agree with.

26 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-03 04:47 ID:Heaven

But look at Jews, after inbreeding so much they are kind of ugly...

27 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-06 09:00 ID:bJddQy45

> and for some retarded reason, their loved one is not considered their best friend.

..Heh? My boyfriend is my best friend. We've been best friends for years before we hooked up. i do not see that changing..
I think, that if you wouldn't like your partner as a mere friend had you not been in love with her/him, then you really should rethink whether or not you really should be with this person.
A relationship can't be healthy if it builds on sex and hormones alone. Not if you're planning to get serious, at least.

Best friend though... That would vary from person to person, no?

28 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-06 15:49 ID:4tCAEDE9

You people are also forgetting that most other species have a much more complex gene pool. There's more genetic variation in a large bee hive than in the entire human race. I know from personal observations that an animal with the intelligence of a housecat will mate with their own children if there are no other fertile males around, and cats are (compared to some other things in the animal kingdom) pretty smart. It's basically like saying that a cat would be stupid for jumping out of a 15 foot tree because if a human did that they'd probably walk away with a broken limb. After several generations of incest the cats will start to come out with more problems, but in MOST animals once or twice is the exact same as mating with someone you're not related to.

29 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-06 20:46 ID:qOoP4o1n

30 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-06 22:15 ID:gClgR0/q

>>29
Thanks for the informative link.

31 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-06 22:21 ID:Heaven

>>29-30 are DQN

32 Name: Damn 2005-10-09 01:55 ID:ylHaahae

Let me explain why incest is wrong. Are you familar with basic biology (meiosis, alleles, genomes, chromosomes, etc?) During meiosis, an imbreed child would be more likely to bring out reccessive traits in the chromosomes since both partners would share nearly the same genes. And those reccessive traits are at times, diseases. Of course, due to a lot of recessive characteristics becoming dominant, you get some fucked up looks too. It's about science, not morality.

33 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 03:05 ID:gClgR0/q

>>32
See argument 1, dumbass.

34 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 06:03 ID:Heaven

Don't be rude.

35 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 07:18 ID:Heaven

>>34 He is right, though. Incest has very low rates of recessive disorder phenotypes, except with repeated instances through multiple generations.

>>28 IIRC, all the bees in one hive have the same genes. After all, they do all have the same mother. I don't understand what you mean by other animals having a 'larger gene pool'; having a different number of genes means little.

I shouldn't write this now, waaaay too tired.

36 Name: 34 2005-10-09 07:23 ID:Heaven

I am just saying that you shouldn't be rude.
If your point is correct, you can simply refer to an instance where this is pointed out.

37 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 14:57 ID:Heaven

>>36
well, i'd say it's also pretty rude to pull some comment out your ass without reading even the first post in the thread, so dumbass was pretty much called for

38 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 15:30 ID:05wX0FOc

I thought incest promoted the growth of telemeres, making the offspring longer-lived

39 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 15:59 ID:gClgR0/q

>>38
Once again, I politely request you look at Argument 1 of the original post.

40 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-10-09 16:00 ID:Heaven

Cool down, >>37. This isn't world4ch.

41 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 17:05 ID:Heaven

>>37
I am not really interested in what was called for.
I am just telling you to not be rude and needlessly turn this thread into a huge namecalling flamewar. You can do without that.

42 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 18:47 ID:b3hYUJdB

I thought incest did [biological thingy] [biologically] [totally ignoring post 1] [will keep doing it] [stop complaining]

that said, there is nothing inherently wrong with having romantic/sexual relationship with a relative. How could there be? But socially, of course it will hurt you and the relative, therefore it may not be in your best interest, depending.

please close this thread

43 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 20:23 ID:Heaven

> please close this thread

I know you are frustrated with several points being rehashed in this thread without any good reason.
But that doesn't mean we should stop discussing it.

It's a special topic, alright.

44 Post deleted by moderator.

45 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 21:48 ID:ylHaahae

>>44

Damn...I like My cousin better than my sister. The pussy is tighter. And yeah, guess what dumbass? I like to go for a round of brown nosing and stick it in her ass!!

46 Name: Geez 2005-10-09 21:50 ID:V3dv1r+q

Trolling...Always fun

47 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-09 22:34 ID:gClgR0/q

>>45
Hot. Please post pictures.

48 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-10 00:20 ID:Heaven

>>43
I was actually pissed at >>39 for uselessy trying to keep the thread limited to one topic of discussion.
The biological implications of incest are quite fascinating, and much more complicated than the discussion on its morality (which can be summed up in one paragraph, one sentence even).

49 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 02:01 ID:Q5JhsfXo

you don't have siblings do you. If you did you'd see whats wrong with it. Cousins are fair game though. :D

50 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 03:48 ID:Heaven

Well, most anime/erogame/manga usually sets it up so that the person didn't live with tehir sibling all their life.

Koi Kaze, for example. And he sort of fell in love with her before he knew it was his sister.

I have siblings, so I know what you mean. But who knows what would have happened if you didn't know them. They would be just like cousins.

51 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 05:47 ID:Heaven

I have a sister and since I really really hate her I can never think of being together.

52 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 10:48 ID:Heaven

>>51
What about your parents?

53 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 13:56 ID:wlT2vS2W

They're dead.

54 Name: sage 2005-10-26 15:44 ID:lX7vqLb0

Why are the 2ch-type sites haunted by sexual deviants? If it isn't the pedophiles trying to make themselves look legitmate, it's people advocating incest.

55 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 16:41 ID:qOoP4o1n

>>54

lol.

56 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 19:27 ID:Heaven

it's because it's anoynmous

57 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-26 22:47 ID:Heaven

and also hilarious

58 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-27 01:59 ID:Heaven

Yep.

59 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-27 02:07 ID:Heaven

To be fair, many clever things have been said, some of which were pretty interesting, from an academic viewpoint. And also, there was much anonymous hilarity. GJ so far, we need some incest related news or something to keep the thing going now!

60 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-31 02:07 ID:0xI9jHFg

Koi Kaze was about Genetic Sexual Attraction. The basis for that is 2 siblings raised apart don't form the "family" relationship and people (and animals) tend to be attracted to those of similar genetic makeup. No one much closer genetically than a sibling. When these siblings meet in adulthood, they become sexually attracted to eachother.

A little different than just incest. Interesting to read about if you're so inclined.

61 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-31 06:33 ID:muw1ykoc

wow this is totally interesting.

wait no it isnt.

62 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-10-31 06:42 ID:Heaven

> Koi Kaze was about Genetic Sexual Attraction.

We all know how reliable and accurate manga are.

> tend to be attracted to those of similar genetic makeup.

That's... quite a stretch there.

63 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-31 14:20 ID:05wX0FOc

>>62 Read up on it. It's no stretch.

64 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-31 19:03 ID:axC4j91F

The attraction scale is more like a y = x^2 curve, x being genetic closeness, y being sexual attraction. Siblings would be on the far left.

65 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-10-31 20:39 ID:Heaven

>>63

I did, and I found one article in Guardian, and a website named www.geneticsexualattraction.com, and a whole lot of pages referring to those. Care to point me towards some more reliable sources? Like a scientific publication?

66 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-11-01 00:52 ID:Heaven

>>64
err...I wasn't thinking. As you would expect, y starts at zero or negative and goes up and after a while goes down.

67 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-11-01 03:43 ID:Heaven

>>63
Given my interest in both genetics and psychology, you'd think someone would have told me about this. Now, I'm no biologist, but here's how I see it:

People are attracted to attractive people. You know, individuals who have features that reflect being healthy and fertile, who lack physical deviations from the norm, and who have whatever other indicators it is that either sex seeks in the other. In other words, what people are after is the genotype that leads to a (likely to be) evolutionarily-successful phenotype.

Genetic similarity doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Unattractive people who end up together seem to do so more out of social pressure than otherwise. Everyone wants the hottie. Nor does it explain sexual attraction between members who come from populations that are likely to be significantly different.

68 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-11-01 18:34 ID:6COkQDC2

>>67 Empirical, of course, but I often hear of couples being mistake as siblings.

But I can't find any reference to one's own genetics in sexual attraction to others. Most sites talk about what you said, genetic health.

69 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-11-01 20:12 ID:Heaven

Am I incesting if I have sex with myself?

70 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-11-02 01:19 ID:Heaven

>>68
Couples pick up each other's behaviours, so they behave very similar. Nothing to do with genetics.

71 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-11-03 14:06 ID:Heaven

>>65

Well, a google search for "Genetic Sexual Attraction" picked up many results for me, so there's probably at least one reliable source in there. (Most of them seem to be from adoption sites.)

http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/12/68/04011268.pdf mentions it, and it seems to be the UK Department of Health.

My bet is it's just sort of rare, since it's not often adopted children meet their real family later on. Not to mention, people probably wouldn't want to mention it.

72 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-11-03 14:07 ID:Heaven

Also:

Westermarck effect

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction and bonding. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was discovered by anthropologist Edward Westermarck. The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Shim-pua marriage customs of Taiwan, as well as in biological-related families.

But in the case of the Israeli kibbutz farms, these children grew up in a common children's house, away from their parents. They spent the entire day and night together. This did result in a generation that was not interested in the opposite sex within their class, and the program was dropped. It's an extreme example of grouping since the adults were also removed from the environment.

When this does not occur, for example where a brother and sister are brought up not knowing about one another, they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults: a phenomenon known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation is consistent with the theory that the Westermarck effect evolved to suppress inbreeding.

Westermarck vs. Freud

Freud argued that members of the same family naturally lust for one another, making it necessary for societies to create incest taboos, but Westermarck argued the reverse, that incest taboos themselves arise naturally as products of response mediated by a relatively simple inherited epigenetic rule, namely the Westermarck effect. Subsequent research over the years supports Westermarck's observations and interpretation.

73 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-11-15 20:02 ID:LGwIwcuB

>>2

How is making it illegal racist?

74 Name: Random Anonymous 2005-11-15 20:12 ID:Heaven

>>70

Statement can be expanded to people pick up on each other's behavior.

75 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-11-16 03:19 ID:Heaven

>>74
Well, yes, but couples spend much of their life around each other. That, and their relationship is intimate to begin with.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.