A discussion on the impact of incest in your life

I think the reason for the illegalness has less to do with morality and more to do with the fear of genetic problems.

 

I'm gonna agree with Saint of Killers. It should be legal among consenting adults.

Not that I find it in any way morally acceptable or desirable (if it happened in my family I would energically oppose it and do all I could to dissuade them), but well, I also don't want to intervene in what consenting adults do to each other, however disgusting.

 

Not a ban, just an edit this time.

 

Incidentally, Incest does occur around the world in great frequency - if you consider first-cousin marriages as Incest.

In many Sub-Saharan tribes in Africa and throughout a majority of the Islamic World, First-Cousin Marriages are still very common and indeed encouraged by the Cultures present there. This idealogy promotes the idea of maintaining the purity of the familiy Bloodline, of course disregarding what we now know of genetic abnormalities. But hey, these people didn't know about that stuff when they made up the customs hundreds of years ago.

Remember, Saddam Hussein (and Osama Bin Laden) was married to his First-Cousin, and we can see what that union brought the world. Anyone seen or heard about this Saddam's Son, Uday? He's a freakin sociopath!

 

Actually it's only over several consecutive generations that it poses a significantly greater chance of defects. And that ignores the fact that sex does not have to result in a child. There's condoms, pills, and myriad other forms of birth control. Of course, they're not 100% effective, but they're pretty close. If you want to argue that no one should have sex unless they want a child then that's another thing altogether.

I'm arguing that any chance of having a child from an incestuous relationship is a chance that shouldn't be taken. And PPOR on the "over consecutive generations" - I was under the impression there's a higher chance of abnormalities through one occasion of a child born to parents from an incestuous relationship.

The same thing used to be used as an arguement against interracial relationships, and more recently against homosexuals adopting.

Homosexuality is an entirely different topic. Homosexuality has been acceptable in various cultures for thousands of years. Incest has never, ever been acceptable. Every society has had some rule or taboo against it. This is because it endangers the chances of successful breeding, and because it is generically revolting to most humans.

This can most certainly be said for other relationships. How many people enter into relationships for the wrong reasons? Quit a bit, I'd say.

Pathetic argument. Yes, people enter normal relationships, gay or straight, for the wrong reasons. However, incest is an entirely different matter. Something which is so abhorrent to society and so against human nature REQUIRES some degree of mental or emotional damage.

This could also be said for any relationship, regardless of familial ties.

Almost 100% of sexual encounters between family members are non-consensual. Almost 100% of sexual encounters between non-family members are consensual. This should be telling you something.

Once again, the same has been said of homosexuality. Quite often "emotional damage" is used as a synonym for "going too far against the grain"

Homosexuality is not "going against the grain," though. It has existed since the dawn of time. In many societies, it is and was permissable. The same cannot be said for incest.

So socially unaceptable = unhealthy? By that logic, nothing should ever change.

Socially unacceptable to the point where the relationship would be worthless anyway. How is it healthy to live in a relationship where you're thought of as a freak? People should not be breeding with their own family. There are millions of non-family members out there, with whom there is much less risk of genetic malformation, social castigating, spoiling familial relations, covering abuse, etc.

I am not seeing the difference between homosexuality and incest.

Homosexuality does not, ever, result in a genetically malformed child. There is a much higher occurency of this happening amongst children from incestuous couplings - and many incestuous couplings to produce children (because generally the people who take part in them are also less likely to be knowledgeable about contraception and birth control methods).

Homosexuality is not against human nature. It has always existed, and is permissable in many societies. Incest has never been permissable. It has always been against the grain. That's because it works against successful evolution by having a much higher chance of producing genetically malformed children.

Also, the Santorum controversy plays right into this. He compared (indirectly) homosexuality to incest, saying that if the government can't make laws outlawing homosexual acts, then by extension, they don't have the basis for making laws outlawing incest between consenting adults.

Since when did some Senate Republican become an authority figure to me whose opinion matters more than yours?

I know that some sort of experimenting between siblings is quite common during childhood. However, the vast majority of people don't, and the vast majority of people who do grow out

 

Are we talking about a brother/sister or a couin/cousin relationship or what here?

I believe it is legal to marry a cousin, but not advisable - you should have genetic tests before having kids.

Personally, I would never have a romantic relationship with a first cousin (actually, all my cousins are girls, but if I had boy cousins I wouldn't consider it).

This is because I think of my cousins like sisters, we look like each other, you can tell we're related and I was brought up with them for the first 8 years of my life. The idea is just revolting to me, although I wouldn't condemn anyone who did marry their cousin.

Brother/sister incest is, IMHO, copletely wrong and damaging to family relations.

I had a crush on my third cousin a couple of years ago, is that wrong?

 

I don't think there is any problem with third cousins, considering the genetic similarities are so far removed. Second cousins becomes a bit doubtful, and first cousins is definitely not good, in my opinion.

Not only that, but it also depends on how well you know them. If you grew up with your third cousin, then fell in love with him, I'd say there was something pretty wrong, but if you only saw him every few years, then I guess I can understand it. That said, I'd still say it was a bad idea to act on those urges, simply because of the possible fallout in the family. There are billions of other non-family members - why not choose one of them? I wasn't under the impression that incest is anything like homosexuality (where you're only attracted to one particular gender), and you can only be attracted to family members.

- Scarlet.

 

I don't really like bringing religion into a discussion, but this is a question that has bugged me for years.

After Cain killed Able, he went to live in the wilderness. The Bible says Cain knew his wife. So in the beginning, if we are to take the Bible at face value, there was Adam and Eve. Where did Cains wife come from, if she wasn't one of his sisters?

I found about 10 cases of incest, or a places where incest must have occurred if the bible is to be taken at face value.

Other than that question, I have no opinion on the subject, what goes on between consenting adult, and I emphasize this CONSENTING ADULTS , is nobodies bussiness but theirs.

So if Big Brothers watching, I Proudly, and Defiantly flip him the Bird.

 

EDIT: Nevermind.

 

Other than that question, I have no opinion on the subject, what goes on between consenting adult, and I emphasize this CONSENTING ADULTS , is nobodies bussiness but theirs.

I think the question originally asked is if an incestuous relationship can be healthy, and if it is right...not if it is right to be illegal. I think that if it is between consenting adults then it should be legal, but that doesn't make it right...especially if it started before they were consenting adults.

 

Check out this article:

Slate article on incest, homosexuality, and Santorum

It pretty much sums up my position on the issue.

 

Nice article, Jediflyer. I think it sums it up nicely.

The way I see it, stable families are good, homosexuality isn't a choice, and therefore, gay marriage should be not just permitted but encouraged. Morally, I think incest is bad because it confuses relationships. But legally, I don't see why a sexual right to privacy, if it exists, shouldn't cover consensual incest.

 

I know a woman who had an incestuous relationship with her brother. She was messed up, so messed up that I didn't know for sure if she was telling the truth about having had an incestuous relationship with her brother. But if it was true it seemed clear that it had messed her up, or that the only reason that it had happened was because she was messed up, badly scarred by something else, and I tend to think that something else was sexual abuse by her father. The whole family was just a sad, pathetic mess with at least one person who badly needed serious jail time.

My guess is that if incest is happening between siblings then the family must be seriously messed up in other ways, and that the kids have likely been seriously messed up by their parents.

 

I'm arguing that any chance of having a child from an incestuous relationship is a chance that shouldn't be taken. And PPOR on the "over consecutive generations" - I was under the impression there's a higher chance of abnormalities through one occasion of a child born to parents from an incestuous relationship.

I think first cousins who have intercourse have a 0.025% higher chance of having a child with abnormailities if the woman falls pregnant.

*

As for someone saying that you just need tyo look at Saddam Hussien's family to see the negative outcomes - I doubt it was purely because his parents are first cousins.

I know a married couple who are first cousins. They come from Iraq and have six children. Not one of these kids have genetic abnormalities - they are all bright happy young people.

Kithera

 

We just finished the section on genetics in my Biology class. Yes it is harmful for a brother and sister to ingrage in intercourse. It is also highly dangerous in first cousins and second cousin. It begins to fade out in the third cousin stage. Also it is extremly hazardous to the unborn child.

It has to deal with the mixing of the same traits. And social darwinism a little bit.

 

Touchy topic. Personally I am against incestual relationships, I think they should be discouraged at all costs, even first cousins, I look at my cousins and can't even stand the thought.

But as been said before, if its between two consenting adults, and they use every measure possible to avoid pregnancy knock yourselves out.

I guess it won't be long until we have a beastiality thread discussing sex with animals. Where will it all end?

 

I told me friend everything that you said, but I think he went ahead and did it anyways. Nothing bad has happened, and I think they are both happy and stuff. It was ok, and no-one got hurt or anything. There wasn't any intercourse, so there can't be any babies.

Thanks for everyone posting their thoughts.

so, despite all your worries, everything is going to be ok

UB

 

I don't have a problem with people in an incestuous relationship. It's none of my business.

"What about parents having sex with their young children?" Well, obviously that's wrong. But it would still be wrong if they had sex with young children they weren't related to, so incest isn't the issue with this situation. Pedophilia is.

"What about a person forcing sex on a relative?" Again, it's not the incet that's a problem here. It's the rape. Forcing sex on a non-relative is just as wrong.

The only stricture I'd recommend is that close relatives first master Natural Family Planning before engaging in intercourse. Avoiding conception in such a case would be a very good idea.

 

thanks for the positive feedback

UB

 

I think first cousins who have intercourse have a 0.025% higher chance of having a child with abnormailities if the woman falls pregnant.

Hmmm, research I read stated a 3-4% increase between first cousins.

 

Nothing bad has happened, and I think they are both happy and stuff. It was ok, and no-one got hurt or anything.

Well, brilliant for them. I still have to weigh in with the view that it's unequivocally morally wrong, and not a little disordered. Others here have posted with other, practical reasons to oppose incest, which are more than sufficient, but the basic "it's wrong" also works as well. Just because it feels good doesn't mean it can't be bad.

 

About cousin marriages (from http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml) I know it's pro-cousin marriage, but I've checked the facts from a neutral, reliable source:
Fact: 26 states allow first cousin marriages; Most people can marry their cousin in the US.

Fact: US prohibitions against cousin marriages predate modern genetics. Hmmm.

Fact: No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. It is also legal throughout Canada to marry your cousin.

Fact: Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section for more information on genetic counselors.

Fact: Second cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, per the book "Clinical Genetics Handbook?? courtesy of the March of Dimes.

Fact: It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins!

Fact: The range of consanguinity in Saudi Arabia is between 34 to 80+ percent. A study has been done on birth defects resulting from consanguineous marriages in this country.

Fact: Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children.

Fact: Franklin D. Roosevelt, the longest serving US president in history married his cousin (not a first cousin, however they shared the same last name).

Fact: The first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. MacDonald married his first cousin.

Fact: Current studies indicate that cousin couples have a lower ratio of miscarriages --perhaps because body chemistry of cousins is more similar. The verdict is still out.

Chew on that!

BTW, cousin marriages became taboo after whites came to America. They prohibited the marrying of cousins to mark themselves apart from Native Americans.