-
Phunkie wrote on 2011-08-13 21:49
Incest = sexual intercourse between close relatives. (How close is close though?)
It's seen as taboo in many parts of the world, mostly because inbreeding (reproduction between two individuals with a common ancestor) tends to lead to a higher probability of congenital birth defects. For that reason, incest is outlawed in many parts of the world, regardless of the ages of the two partners.
But should it be?
We've discussed it here before, in some gay marriage thread, but I wanted to spark a real debate focused on this issue.
My stance on incest is that, although inbreeding can lead to messed up children, no law or government should have a say on what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.
Yeah, yeah, it may seem sick to you thinking about dating your sister or your first cousin, but hey, for some people, that happens naturally sometimes. So, is it right to condemn or incarcerate a legally consenting couple for pursuing a sexual relationship?
Also, many people have genetic abnormalities they may pass on to their children, but we don't ask that they get parenting licenses. So, if we start saying that these people may not have children, where does it end?
Incest. Discuss.
What do you think about incest?
Should people be jailed for having sex with a close relative?
At what point isn't it incest anymore? (One generation apart, two generations apart, three?)
Have you ever had a crush on a cousin?
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-08-13 22:06
Well, biologically-wise, inbreeding shouldn't be allowed because of the defects. Such defects will bare a burden on not only the parent, but on society as well, especially for insurance who will probably have to bare the cost of keeping the child alive.
In terms of legality, most countries don't allow very close like sister-brother or parent-child.
When it comes to cousins... it gets a bit more complex. Just look at the US, some states permit first cousins, some don't. Some have conditions like as long as they don't have babies, some don't allow cousins at all.
State Law and Cousin Marriage Resources
Then, there is the religious based stigma, like how religion is used as an argument against gay marriages, which is kind of stupid, and doesn't really offer much of a discussion.
-
Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-08-13 22:07
I think incest is more or less asking for trouble. Its happened in Europe, in a specific culture of people who almost exclusively practice incest. There was an alarming, increasing rate of birth defects. Deformed children would be an inevitability in a society where incest is allowed.
No I don't think people should be jailed, that's rather harsh. Perhaps a legally enforced restraining order or something along those lines.
I'm not entirely sure. I think any in-family relations can lead to deformities. So personally I would just stay away.
Other than the initial lust you have when you see someone that is extremely hot, no I haven't.
-
Nintega wrote on 2011-08-13 22:23
Incest itself isn't bad, it's just the effects that are a problem. As stated before, it would be too much of a problem to deal with the birth defects for anyone to support its legality.
Jailing is an idiotic punishment for such a thing. I agree with Sleeperdial on that part, a restraining order would be the best punishment.
I'd say that 3 generations apart is okay. The chance for birth defects should be as low as a child from two unrelated parents.
And no, I've never had a crush on a cousin.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-08-13 22:26
I don't view incestuous sex any different than any other kind of sex, except that I feel awkward thinking about doing it with close family members. Also I guess incestuous procreation (something entirely different again) might be suboptimal.
I very much like 4 of my cousins though. :blood:
That would be all.
-
Kazuni wrote on 2011-08-13 22:27
Oh, this was on the Tyra Banks show yesterday. There were these two cousins who started dating after being roommates at the request of their moms, who were sisters. Then they got married and plan to have kids.
Apparently they went to get their DNA tested and they only have a 3-4% bigger chance of having a kid with genetic defects.
I don't like incest, it's just something I'm kind of uncomfortable with, but I don't really have anything scientific to say about why I don't like it, so yeah.
Also, I don't think sexual relations should be allowed between family members (not sure how close), even if "they're not allowed to have kids". You can't exactly force an abortion on them should an "accident" happen, considering the US government right now.
-
psyal wrote on 2011-08-13 22:29
I don't think I'd mind someone having an incest relationship. I wouldn't suggest them having children, but its their choice, I guess.
I don't see any reason to jail them, unless it was something like rape, which is a crime.
What I think I've heard is that second cousins are the closest one should go (when attempting not to be incest). No clue where I heard that though.
Nope, no crushes in general, so no cousin crushes. Plus I see them maybe twice a decade.
-
Yogurticecream wrote on 2011-08-13 22:30
Quote from Phigga;550898:
It's seen as taboo in many parts of the world, mostly because inbreeding (reproduction between two individuals with a common ancestor) tends to lead to a higher probability of congenital birth defects. For that reason, incest is outlawed in many parts of the world, regardless of the ages of the two partners
You know, for higher chance of survivability of our kind it is sort of vital that we mate outside our gene pool.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html
The results were striking. Overall, the women preferred the scents of T-shirts worn by men whose MHC genes were different from their own.
That difference is actually a survival benefit: The combination of two individuals' different MHC (major histocompatibility locus) genes gives their offspring an advantage in beating back disease organisms.
The thing about MHC is that in a non-endogamic (internal marrying) population it will be tough to find individuals with the exact or almost exact matches of these genes. In other words, in cultures that promote incest, it is very likely that the MHC of two individuals are very similar and hence brings down the rate of survivability of their offsprings.
Below is a pretty cool article to explain more about incest and taboo.
http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html
Naturally unselected
Because so-called higher organisms such as humans are susceptible to life-shortening genetic combinations, Lieberman thinks nature has weeded out incestuous behavior over time through natural selection. Humans and other animals, she said, likely evolved ways to detect and avoid mating with their close relatives.
"We don't have DNA goggles to detect our relatives, but I think we've evolved psychological systems that help us do so," Lieberman said, including face recognition and even scent. But Lieberman thinks the strongest cue humans have is growing up with a sibling under the same roof.
"People refer to this as the Westermarck Effect, which essentially says children who co-reside are much less likely to breed with each other when they reach adulthood," she said.
David Spain, an emeritus University of Washington anthropologist who has followed incest research since 1968, said incest "defeats the whole point of sex" — mixing up the gene pool — and is ultimately why the behavior is astonishingly rare among first relatives.
"Cousin marriages don't have as much in the way of deleterious effects, so we see those partnerships more often," Spain said. "Evolution weeds out the things that don't work."
-
Yoorah wrote on 2011-08-13 22:49
inb4 "equal rights" to incest couples and incest pride parades. :|
Personally, I don't like the concept.
In addition to increasing the risk of genetic defects, doesn't this also decrease the diversity or effectiveness of the immune system?
Then there are surely social reasons, but I don't really know much about those. Alliances between families?
Wasn't incest frowned upon or banned before people were able to understand the negative impact scientifically?
-
Kazuni wrote on 2011-08-13 22:50
Quote from Yoorah;550945:
inb4 "equal rights" to incest couples and incest pride parades. :|
Personally, I don't like the concept.
In addition to increasing the risk of genetic defects, doesn't this also decrease the diversity or effectiveness of the immune system?
Then there are surely social reasons, but I don't really know much about those. Alliances between families?
Wasn't incest frowned upon or banned before people were able to understand the negative impact scientifically?
Incest was popular back in the middle ages. Heard there were more incestuous marriages than regular ones.
-
Joker wrote on 2011-08-13 23:05
if you think about it... were all interbreeding if you believe the bibles look on it....after all thats what our countries were built upon... you cant go from 2->16->32->64-> and so on without interbreeding... so technically the cycle never really broke lol... just funny and thought i should mention that..
-
Chockeh wrote on 2011-08-14 00:04
I've had a crush on a first cousin that's my age before.
:blush:
We did flirt a lot, but that was it.
-
Yoorah wrote on 2011-08-14 00:06
Quote from Kazuni;550947:
Incest was popular back in the middle ages. Heard there were more incestuous marriages than regular ones.
I've heard. But then, it depends on location and culture. And what about later in time? What I was getting at was, was it really the scientific side that made incest banned or frowned upon?
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-08-14 00:18
Quote from Yoorah;551040:
I've heard. But then, it depends on location and culture. And what about later in time? What I was getting at was, was it really the scientific side that made incest banned or frowned upon?
Religion (or rather, certain changes of religious beliefs throughout time) made incest pretty frown upon. Religion is much older than the science of genetics.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2011-08-14 00:26
I was reading about this couple, which was what prompted me to make this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Stuebing
Brother and sister who married and had four kids. They weren't raised together. They met as adults and fell in love, which can happen.
Two of their kids were born with some sort of disability, and people keep reporting them to the police and the courts keep trying to jail 'em.
It just makes me wonder, is all that really worth it??
In October 2001 Susan gave birth to their first child, a boy. A social worker suspected that her brother was the father and reported them to the police. In 2002 Patrick was first taken to court. He got a one-year suspended sentence. Then, they had a second child. The first two children are slightly physically disabled and are a little slow mentally as well. They were both taken into foster care. They then had a third child which had a heart problem, but which is now completely healthy after a heart operation.
In 2004 there was a second trial in which Susan K. was a co-defendant because she was 18 when the second child was conceived. Neither of them was assigned a defense lawyer. Patrick was sentenced to 10 months in jail. Susan was put under the supervision of a social worker for six months.
After his second conviction Patrick approached a lawyer who appealed against the verdict. Meanwhile Susan gave birth to a fourth child. It's healthy and she was allowed to keep it.
Both were put on trial again. Patrick got sentenced to one year and two months in jail, and his sister was again placed under supervision. An experienced lawyer then took over the case and managed to bring it before the Federal Constitutional Court. By November 2006 Patrick had served his second sentence. Only if the court now rules against his third sentence will he be spared a further jail term.
"One can't put this poor person in jail again," said his lawyer Endrik Wilhelm.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,540831,00.html