Is incest wrong?

[Sanguine]

Do you think incest is wrong?

 

[Yoshikkko]

i think its fine when its consensual
what is "wrong" anyway??

 

[Blah]

If it's consensual, I say let it happen.

In the case of generational gaps between sexual partners, it may be necessary to first divorce your child/grandchild's other parent/grandparent, because cheating is never good. Royals of the past, and actually people of the past in general often did these sorts of things and humanity doesn't seem to have suffered as a whole. I think we could all survive if Mommy loved more than just Daddy.


You wouldn't need to awkwardly meet the SO's distant family members during the wedding. :^)

 

[Biogoji]

Of course incest is wrong. Just because true love may be between someone and their sister doesn't mean it's right it's still fucked up in the end. Especially if they decide to have a children by natural means.

 

[OuterTsuchinoko]

I don't think it's wrong at all. If two people who are related fall in love then big deal. As for having kids it could come out with problems in many ways, but the less closely related the two people are the less likely a chance the baby will have problems.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

For evolutionary reasons, increst is wrong, because it endangers the survival of one's species as constant inbreeding creates defects in its future generations and making them more vulnerable to disease. The #1 priority for a species to survive is to adapt, and you want to practice certain behaviors that would affect your species in a positive way. Incest, unfortunately, does the exact opposite.

 

[SmokedPaprika]

Sure, but wouldn't it require a large majority of the populace to be incestuous for that to have a legitimate impact?

 

[Her]

Lots of ifs and buts here. Incestuous relationships/marriages between distant cousins are not exactly 'my thing', but they're generally exempt from the discussion because they're mostly free of coercion/abuse or genetic defects if they choose to procreate. Not entirely, but to a degree where it is... tolerable.

The main issue lies within direct family members. Genetic possibilities aside, the other main reason incest is outlawed is because it is very rarely consensual within immediate family members. It's a common factor in child sex abuse and/or molestation within the family. Sometimes it is not so graphic, but consensual incest often lies in psychological conditioning. Consent under coercion and/or abuse are hardly what I would call agreeable circumstances. There are naturally going to be cases that are, all things considered, healthy. But they are few and far. This is without considering the possible outcome of their procreation. You can be as liberal as you wish in a theoretical discussion about incest, but the reality is that it is not so simple.

I think the social and legal taboo is more than justified.

 

[Kanzler]

Inbred children are a legitimate impact unto themselves. The risk of a life-threatening genetic disorder is very high. The prevention of inbreeding supports banning incest.

 

[Biogoji]

Inbred children are a legitimate impact unto themselves. The risk of a life-threatening genetic disorder is very high. The prevention of inbreeding supports banning incest.

That's pretty much how i feel. Yes someone may truly love someone they are related to but then they have an inbred child with horrible genetic disorders. Like Harley said incest is a common fact in molestation and sex abuse.

 

[SmokedPaprika]

If the concern is about inbreeding, then, what do you guys think about same-sex incest between consenting partners?

 

[Kanzler]

If the concern is about inbreeding, then, what do you guys think about same-sex incest between consenting partners?

I suppose there would be nothing wrong with it, if it was a truly consensual act. But I fear having to justify that same-sex incest as appropriate but opposite-sex incest as not. Kind of like how there are different ages of consent for vaginal and anal sex, or how same-sex marriage was illegal - it seems inherently unfair to threat same-sex and opposite-sex relations differently.

 

[Biogoji]

I still think that incest is bad. I may sound like someone who's stuck in the past but I personally think that incest is wrong.

 

[Kanzler]

In theory, the solution would be simple - and forgive me if I'm oversimplifying anything here. If you passed a law disallowing opposite sex couple from having children, the biggest moral complaint would be diminished. However, I understand that this is a law that would be extremely difficult to uphold, and do not have the time to work out ways to morally regulate such a law.

I think any law that prevents people from having children is a difficult law to have. I think it would be terrible to take away a mother from her newborn child because she had that child. I think it would create an incentive to get an abortion which may be dangerous.

On another note, the reason consent between siblings or parent-child often takes a manipulative upbringing to begin with deals with the already intense stigmas related to incest. I understand that saying "if there wasn't such a social stigma" is another what-if statement, but if you went back just 100 years ago and made that same argument about homosexuality - well, there'd be a similar rebuttal towards it.

If a parent groomed a child to think that incest was okay, and the child consents, then is incest permissible in that case? If the child ends up leaving the incestuous relationship and is no longer willing to participate in incest, should the parent be punished for the incest that occurred before the child's decision to stop consenting?

This is a great topic. These are difficult questions.

 

[Kanzler]

Well, yeah - abortion is a much more complicated issue than sexuality, and to force someone to give up their unborn child on the chance of genetic defect is even more complicated. I suppose discussing this would deter too much off topic, so I'll qualify this for now.

I was thinking of a possible case where let's say that a woman participates in incest and unknowingly becomes pregnant. She discovers her pregnancy 7 months in, when that abdomen bump becomes a bit too large. An abortion at this point is much riskier than it would be earlier on. A law that criminalized having inbred children would provide an incentive for her to get this abortion, and this would be a very dangerous and arguably intolerable incentive.

Parents have groomed their children into liking only the other gender for centuries, now. Is that not a form of manipulation in and of itself? If the child's sense of sexuality shines through like a homosexual teenager's would - and I hope this isn't too much of a red herring - wouldn't they naturally go for what makes them tick? Admittedly, a parent's influence on a child's affections towards them is probably more powerful than their influence on what gender you end up attracted to. I'll also give you that a parent raising a child to fall in love with them is probably easier to do in the shadows than raising a child to like a specific sexuality, but this is really a topic about the morality of incest, rather than the potential dangers of its playing field.

Right, but people who are homosexual come out anyways despite of grooming, so there has to be something beyond manipulation. I wouldn't regard living and participating in a society with heterosexual norms as manipulation, because you're not going out of your way to make somebody a certain way. The only people who are manipulated are those who are subject to "pray away the gay" efforts, know what I mean?

I mean, of course it's possible for a child to be manipulated into a relationship with an immediate relative. It's also possible for a man to be manipulated into a relationship with a woman. It's usually not entirely up to the parent to decide what society tells the child to think to begin with, so I imagine it wouldn't be difficult for the child to be raised to accept incest as a socially acceptable activity without manipulation on the parent's part. I also don't see where the immediate sexual interest on the parent would come from - I wouldn't look at my baby and decide that I'd raise them to be my eventual partner, especially if I, y'know, already had a partner.

Wait, wouldn't it be difficult to have a child accept incest as socially acceptable without parental manipulation because society frowns upon incest?

I understand that there are situations where manipulation will occur, and that a world with an "okay" on incest might inspire more unhealthy relationships of the sorts, but to tell siblings and parent-child relations who naturally love each other like that that they can't love each other like that - that their love for each other is morally wrong - because another parent somewhere else might trick their children into a manipulated relationship with them seems like a rather cruel thing to say. Same with the same-sex incestual relationships - telling them that they can't because it'd be weird for them to be okay and opposite sexes not is equally cruel.

There are precedents for this in other countries. Apparently a High Court judge in Zimbabwe threw out a jail sentence for a brother-sister couple who live as husband and wife and have a daughter together because it was obvious that the relationship was consensual and based on love.

I guess it's mostly a matter of the mores of a society that decides whether incest is okay or not.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Do I think it's fucked up? Yes. Wrong? Not sure. I mean, animals fuck family soooo. I think it really all comes down to how you were raised.

 

[SmokedPaprika]

Wait, wouldn't it be difficult to have a child accept incest as socially acceptable without parental manipulation because society frowns upon incest?

Sorry, I was writing under the assumption of a society that allowed incest. I suppose I was looking at another what-if scenario, again.

A law that criminalized having inbred children would provide an incentive for her to get this abortion, and this would be a very dangerous and arguably intolerable incentive.

Considering your last comment about social mores, I don't see why they wouldn't give her a pass considering her specific situation. But then again, society is unpredictable.

Right, but people who are homosexual come out anyways despite of grooming, so there has to be something beyond manipulation.

Right, that's what I was meaning to get at with my comments, there, before my mind wandered off and started talking about something else.

The only people who are manipulated are those who are subject to "pray away the gay" efforts, know what I mean?

Yes - but I'm referring to the set of people who are subject to those "efforts", that still end up coming out as gay. I have a friend whose family is like that, and I'm pretty sure that in spite of it all, he's bisexual.

Do I think it's ****ed up? Yes. Wrong? Not sure. I mean, animals **** family soooo. I think it really all comes down to how you were raised.

Not to aggravate you or dismiss your stance - but I'm not sure what the difference between "****ed up" and "wrong" is.

I would like to note, before we continue, that this is the most logically speaking community I've seen on such issues in a long time. I earnestly did not expect to find a Pokemon website capable of talking maturely and professionally about topics like this. There have been few emotional rampages, and the credentials of the subject are being laid out in a reasonable way. Kudos to you guys.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Not to aggravate you or dismiss your stance - but I'm not sure what the difference between "****ed up" and "wrong" is.

Fucked up and wrong can have two completely different meanings. Someone could do something that's fucked up but it could/would be justified or it could be wrong. Incest isn't really justifiable in today's society. Since this is a topic about sex and what not... Putting your stick in the wrong hole (yes the butthole) male or female is "fucked up" but it's not exactly considered "wrong". I kinda don't wanna go into details cause this escalated quickly lmao.

Sorry you guy's had to witness that, I'm just trying to make a point.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Your only reason given is that it could cause birth defects in children. But, what if the two agree never to bear children? Is it ok then?

Additionally, if your only reason against incest is genetic defects, do you believe that two people (not related) that have defects that could potentially pass said defects onto their children should not have a relationship?

It's also not ok on never bearing children, because it'll put your family bloodline at stake. Family bloodlines are an important part of history, because how knows, you could be related to someone famous, and you want to preserve that legacy by producing children to keep the bloodline alive. Just be careful not to inbreed, because genetic defects and disease can kill a healthy spread of a family bloodline until the mother can no longer bare child again due to old age. If one of your offsprings happens to be last surviving member of your bloodline but chooses to remain single and dies alone, then that bloodline is gone, forever. This is also why I don't stand people staying single or not have interest in having children, because I care about the survival of their bloodlines.

 

[Somewhere_]

I think its pretty screwed up, but I do not know if I can prove its immorality. The questions is whether or not the baby has force initiated against it.