Incest

[StarSong]

Hi again

though i might give you a puzzle my rs teacher foisted on us the other week.

she sat down at the front of teh class and claimed there was nothign wrong with incest and it was perfectly acceptable.

as a knee jerk reaction we all looked at her in astonishment and said 'of COURSE it's wrong'

she asked why?

and you know what, we couldn't actually give a reason. I'm personally agnostic, so i can't rely on a religious view of God says no.

When i though about it a bit more, i realised that most of incest being 'wrong' is just a rule made by man (if you believe holy book to be man written) it is simply an idea someone had.

By no means does this mean i would wish to conentance incest, i still personally find it a very uncomfortable subject.

but the fact i have to face is this is only society, and what i have grown up with. i won't renounce that, but i thought it was interesting. I mean, you obviously get the big questions of what are 'right' and 'wrong' and where do they come from, but that fact remains that incest is not wrong biologically - just look at the animal kingdom!

what do you think?

[PolyNewbie]

Hi again

though i might give you a puzzle my rs teacher foisted on us the other week.

she sat down at the front of teh class and claimed there was nothign wrong with incest and it was perfectly acceptable.

as a knee jerk reaction we all looked at her in astonishment and said 'of COURSE it's wrong'

she asked why?

and you know what, we couldn't actually give a reason. I'm personally agnostic, so i can't rely on a religious view of God says no.

When i though about it a bit more, i realised that most of incest being 'wrong' is just a rule made by man (if you believe holy book to be man written) it is simply an idea someone had.

By no means does this mean i would wish to conentance incest, i still personally find it a very uncomfortable subject.

but the fact i have to face is this is only society, and what i have grown up with. i won't renounce that, but i thought it was interesting. I mean, you obviously get the big questions of what are 'right' and 'wrong' and where do they come from, but that fact remains that incest is not wrong biologically - just look at the animal kingdom!

what do you think?

It leads to bad genetics in a population. If you mate with you immediate relative then genetics mismatch and you get a kid with two heads or something. Its why you will never find your sister sexually attractive, no matter how good she looks. Its instinct but sometimes instinct isn't enough.

I've read that you can go with your cousins though.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It leads to bad genetics in a population. If you mate with you immediate relative then genetics mismatch and you get a kid with two heads or something.

There are many combinations that lead to undesirable genetic traits in the population. There are genetic conditions that are far more likely to result in serious health consequences to the children than even sibling reproduction, but we allow people with those genes to reproduce. The bad genes argument doesn't seem to be the reason that we have a taboo against incest, or thos eother instances would be outlawed as well.

.

[tml12]

Hi again

though i might give you a puzzle my rs teacher foisted on us the other week.

she sat down at the front of teh class and claimed there was nothign wrong with incest and it was perfectly acceptable.

as a knee jerk reaction we all looked at her in astonishment and said 'of COURSE it's wrong'

she asked why?

and you know what, we couldn't actually give a reason. I'm personally agnostic, so i can't rely on a religious view of God says no.

When i though about it a bit more, i realised that most of incest being 'wrong' is just a rule made by man (if you believe holy book to be man written) it is simply an idea someone had.

By no means does this mean i would wish to conentance incest, i still personally find it a very uncomfortable subject.

but the fact i have to face is this is only society, and what i have grown up with. i won't renounce that, but i thought it was interesting. I mean, you obviously get the big questions of what are 'right' and 'wrong' and where do they come from, but that fact remains that incest is not wrong biologically - just look at the animal kingdom!

what do you think?

Genetically, it can screw things up REAL bad.

However, if you use protection, etc. then I guess it is your personal business after all.

[RB]

I believe incest is more about a power relationship and usually it is the males taking advantage of the females.

When those who are put into trusting and caring roles proceed to exploit the same for their own selfish pleasure it deem it immoral.

Some places in the "North" still practice incest e.g. Grimsby and along that area, you can't distinguish the folks, they all look like siblings

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

I believe incest is more about a power relationship and usually it is the males taking advantage of the females.

You believe this about everything . Not saying you are wrong, mind you...

I Miss Trudeau,

The bad genes argument doesn't seem to be the reason that we have a taboo against incest, or thos eother instances would be outlawed as well.

It was so at one time, hence the experiments in many countries, including our own, in eugenics.

RB hits the nail on the head with...

When those who are put into trusting and caring roles proceed to exploit the same for their own selfish pleasure it deem it immoral.

Regardless, the entire beginning of this thread is BS.

[Melanie_]

When those who are put into trusting and caring roles proceed to exploit the same for their own selfish pleasure it deem it immoral.

What if it is consensual? Say, for example, biological siblings raised in different households, never knowing each other, then meeting as adults and entering into a sexual relationship? Or for that matter, a parent and child - the classic story of Oedipus and his mother. In these cases, our gut reaction is revulsion, but is it really such a bad thing? And if it is, why?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

Or for that matter, a parent and child - the classic story of Oedipus and his mother.

Conversely, there is the Electra complex, but Agamemnon would likely have ostracized as a 'sexual predator'.

but is it really such a bad thing? And if it is, why?

It is deemed that 'family love' and 'sexual love' aren't compatible, and if they mix, it is an abberant, and not a 'natural', occurence.

[Renegade]

There have been certain practices which society has stereotyped as taboos. Two examples are incest and suicide. The reason that these have evolved into taboos is simply societal self-preservation. A society, which endorsed incest, was likely to yield offspring that (because of the constrained gene pool) was more likely to amplify genetic defects. Similarly a society, which shunned incest, was more likely to have offspring with fewer genetic defects. In my view this is the reason why incest is a taboo in virtually all societies.

Having said that, I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with incest between consenting adults. Our revulsion is a conditioned response which if we really thought about we would see as irrational.

[BHS]

There was a similar argument a few months ago being made about bestiality in the comments section of a blog from Florida that I read now and again. The hypothesis being that if you remove the established religious/moral component from the arguments against bestiality everything else falls apart. Arguments were made that animals are incapable of consent and that bestiality is therefore akin to statutory rape. The counter argument was that man enjoys a relationship with lower animals that does not require their consent; killing animals for food is neither murder nor cannibalism, and it follows that using them for sexual gratification falls into the same category of our dominion over them. (Though such arguments feed the paranoia of the people at PETA who thinki I'm Nazi-esque for enjoying a steak.)

[Riverwind]

The hypothesis being that if you remove the established religious/moral component from the arguments against bestiality everything else falls apart.

One of the problems with religious thinkers is they assume that religion is necessary to have morals. Our a-religious society must have some moral underpinnings or it cannot function. However, the process for deciding what these morals should be is complicated and requires dialog amoung different groups to come to a widely accepted consensus. I am pretty sure the moral argument against beastiality would be part of that consensus.

[BHS]

The hypothesis being that if you remove the established religious/moral component from the arguments against bestiality everything else falls apart.

One of the problems with religious thinkers is they assume that religion is necessary to have morals. Our a-religious society must have some moral underpinnings or it cannot function. However, the process for deciding what these morals should be is complicated and requires dialog amoung different groups to come to a widely accepted consensus. I am pretty sure the moral argument against beastiality would be part of that consensus.

I'm not a religious thinker, if that's something you meant to imply.

Regardless of how a moral code is informed, the hypothesis still stands. If you remove the moral component from laws against bestiality (for instance, saying that it's wrong because a broad public concesus has been reached to the effect that it's indecent) there really isn't much left. There isn't really a convincing legal argument against it.

[Riverwind]

Regardless of how a moral code is informed, the hypothesis still stands. If you remove the moral component from laws against bestiality (for instance, saying that it's wrong because a broad public concesus has been reached to the effect that it's indecent) there really isn't much left. There isn't really a convincing legal argument against it.

Agreed. But I think you will find that true of most crimes.

[geoffrey]

The hypothesis being that if you remove the established religious/moral component from the arguments against bestiality everything else falls apart.

One of the problems with religious thinkers is they assume that religion is necessary to have morals. Our a-religious society must have some moral underpinnings or it cannot function. However, the process for deciding what these morals should be is complicated and requires dialog amoung different groups to come to a widely accepted consensus. I am pretty sure the moral argument against beastiality would be part of that consensus.

I'm not a religious thinker, if that's something you meant to imply.

Regardless of how a moral code is informed, the hypothesis still stands. If you remove the moral component from laws against bestiality (for instance, saying that it's wrong because a broad public concesus has been reached to the effect that it's indecent) there really isn't much left. There isn't really a convincing legal argument against it.

Against the animals best interest??

[BHS]

Regardless of how a moral code is informed, the hypothesis still stands. If you remove the moral component from laws against bestiality (for instance, saying that it's wrong because a broad public concesus has been reached to the effect that it's indecent) there really isn't much left. There isn't really a convincing legal argument against it.

Agreed. But I think you will find that true of most crimes.

I disagree. I think you'll find that most laws work to promote the public good even when removed from any moral or religious context. For instance, laws against speeding have no overt moral context. Further, even if murder were morally acceptible it would still be in society's best interest to ban it.

[BHS]

Against the animals best interest??

Again, keeping in mind, that animals enjoy no protection as persons under the law. Laws preventing animal cruelty are a modern manifestation of our moral opinion of cruelty in general, but have no historical or constituional basis.

[newbie]

Aaah, let's bring religion in okay:

"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

Genesis 20:11-12

"And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses."

Ex. 6:20

[BHS]

Aaah, let's bring religion in okay:

"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

Genesis 20:11-12

"And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses."

Ex. 6:20

There are other examples of incest in those books you've missed, including Lot's fathering children through his daughters. In Leviticus, the next book of the bible (and later in the Biblical narative) almost all forms of incest are expressly forbidden. Leviticus 18

[newbie]

There are other examples of incest in those books you've missed, including Lot's fathering children through his daughters. In Leviticus, the next book of the bible (and later in the Biblical narative) almost all forms of incest are expressly forbidden. Leviticus 18

Yeah, God likes to change his mind a lot I noticed.

[Renegade]

Again, keeping in mind, that animals enjoy no protection as persons under the law. Laws preventing animal cruelty are a modern manifestation of our moral opinion of cruelty in general, but have no historical or constituional basis.

Animals DO enjoy protection the law. We pass laws on animal cruelty and do charge and punish people who trangress such laws. I think what you mean is that animals do not enjoy the same rights protection as humans do in our charter. This is true, but it doesn't prevent us from passing laws to protect them, in the same way we would pass laws to protect the environment even though the environment is not an entity which is protected under the charter of rights.

I do believe that there is a moral basis for society even in a non-religious one. There are some principles which we can basicly agree are wrong. Cruelty to animals is one of those and bestality would fall into that category because the animal is incapable of consent, and as such to inflict such an act would be indeed cruel. Even when we allow ourselves to consume animals for sustinance, we still enforce laws to prevent unnecessary cruelty in their killing.

[PocketRocket]

*Chuckle* I'm not sure how this moved into the realm of bestiality, but the question around THAT issue seems to be one of the animals "consenting".

What if the animal is a male, and it's a woman taking advantage of, for example, the male "attributes" of, say, a German Shepherd???

Kind of hard for him not to be consenting.

Any male of any species has to be "consenting" to some degree simply to get it up.

That's my spin on THAT issue, and as far as I will venture into that area, at least for now.

Regarding incest, aside from societal taboos, the main argument seems to be genetic.

Siblings (or parent/offspring) with a clean genetic slate will produce genetically clean progeny. Simple as that.

Siblings (or parent/offspring) with a recessive bad gene have an increased chance of that recessive being reinforced, and so have a higher chance of a defective baby.

But then again, two unrelated people can also have the same recessive bad gene, and can also lead to reincforcement of the recessive.

But recessives tend to get weeded out of the gene pool over time unless inbreeding is habitual within that branch of the gene pool.

Even then, recessives still tend to be weeded out through the natural culling process.

But the process is not pretty.

A defective baby who dies is good for the gene pool, as the event has eliminated at least one potential source of a bad gene.

But such an even is never a happy one.

As for the moral implications of incest, most, if not all, "morality" stems from survival aspects.

Even the tradition among some religions against eating pork stems from the tendency of pork products to go bad much more quickly than beef or many other meats.

Amongst many of the same religions, you wipe your ass with the left hand only. This is because most people eat with their right hands. This "moral" tradition stems from pre-toilet-paper times, and well before the existence of germicidal soap.

With incest, in times past it was probably noticed that incestuous relationships led to "bad" babies, and this likely was the casue of the incest taboo.

In modern times, with modern contraception techniques, if two consenting adults who are closely related decide they want to have some fun between the sheets, and if doing so brings no harm to anyone, then hey, as far as I'm concerned, go to it.

Like the man who was offered a free circumcision said, "Why not, it's no skin off my nose".

[PocketRocket]

The bestiality thing cause me to recall a joke....

Two women sitting in a veterinarian's office.

One has a German Shepher, the other a Miniature Poodle.

The poodle owner explains that she's there to get the poodle fixed because he has taken to humping peoples' legs.

The shepherd owner tell a tale about how her large dog has taken to jumping on her from behind when she gets out of the shower.

As her story goes, he has actually managed to achieve penetration.

"So" says the poodle lady, "You're here to get your dog neutered too then???".

"No", replies the shepherd lady, "I'm here to get his claws cut".

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

But I think you will find that true of most crimes.

Not really. Almost all crimes are a transgression of the rights, given by society, of others. We haven't given animals many 'rights', except exemption from abuse, so beastiality would have to deemed 'abusive' to be illegal. Much as Renegade says.

[RB]

Dear RB,

I believe incest is more about a power relationship and usually it is the males taking advantage of the females.

You believe this about everything . Not saying you are wrong, mind you...

I also believe if the world was run by female there would be less traumas. I would like to see some alpha female in operation.

[Melanie_]

With incest, in times past it was probably noticed that incestuous relationships led to "bad" babies, and this likely was the casue of the incest taboo.

In ancient Egypt, Pharoahs married their sisters, if I remember some dusty book I read years ago correctly. I wonder how that genetically impacted the royal line?