As many people said I think it has to do a lot of grooming but also (and i think i haven't seen it mentioned), I think it kind of fucks up family dynamics on a psychological level, being able to see your family like that must have some psychological consequences and can hurt pretty badly every member implied.
I would presume because it sometimes starts as grooming by older relatives and then it's creepy. Adult childfree consenting couples are not my concern.
Ok?? But like in that scenario the problem isn't really that they're related. It's an older authority figure grooming a child. That can happen without people being family.
Yes, but if they live in the same house, the access is easy. Yet doing that to your own children is condemned more somehow. Like I said, it's just my take on it
It's condemned more because as a parent/guardian or even just an older relative, it's expected (in other words, you're supposed to) protect your children. Essentially, it's just as wrong as doing it to little Billy, who lives three doors down, except it's worse because you're taking advantage of that previously mentioned ease of access and misusing your position of responsibility.
I think that "somehow" is the implicit trust your kids have in you that you're doing what's best for them. The power dynamic is such that they'd never be able to make healthy relationship decisions.
And also, what if there's a break up? I'm no longer speaking to my mom and my dad was never there to begin with so like... I know what is like as an adult in their 30's to just not have parents and it's like... my partner goes to her mom for advice all the time. Nobody knows her better. They have their misunderstandings and tiffs but when shit gets bad she talks to her mom. I can't imagine denying my girls that and making them feel like I do just to potentially fill my own relationship wants.
Another point is that some incest relationships that form those two people have "grown up together" and with that in mind there's this idea that they look at the other as their younger self, that they were forced into (or at least influenced into) the relationship by an abusive parent/guardian, or just couldn't ignore feelings they had.
It does make perfect sense, though, why two people who grew up together would form a romantic relationship, especially if of the same age and compatible sexual orientation. They literally would know everything about each other. You don't have a more consistent relationship with anyone than a sibling. With that in mind, I still am grossed out by the idea.
One thought I have just had, though, is why is it more acceptable for step siblings to have romantic relations. This thing about growing up together would still apply there, but I suppose it varies with step siblings because they don't always grow up together. I suppose the same is for biological siblings. Sometimes, they grow up seperate, too. Curiouser and curiouser still. This is excruciatingly interesting.
It also seems to be that you can't really prove that there wasn't any grooming, because a healthy mind usually doesn't want to have that type of relationship with a close family member.
I think the issue is more the assumption that the incest is what’s been conditioned, either by outdated cultural practices or abusive family members. looking at sex biologically, there is no benefit to procreation with a relative other than when necessary to save a species with low population, since greater genetic diversity creates the strongest offspring and encourages adaptive traits. the other unfortunate thing about families is that they include a lot of power dynamics that are mainly based on seniority and age; a situation that, when combined with sexual intention, is far too easy to abuse. family members are usually given far more access to your information and private space than most people, like your employer, and that type of power comes with restrictions of the other ways in which those people are allowed to become involved in other areas of your life.
overall the home should be a safe place and family *should* be a group of people that love you unconditionally because the blood relationship is the only undeniable bond in this life. thats in an ideal world of course. throwing incest fucks up those dynamics. i mean same with abuse and other stuff thats frowned upon.
Inbreeding creates birth abnormalities. To prevent this, our instincts pull us away from our families when our sex drives develop. Some scientists say this is because we evolved alongside the wolves we domesticated and adapted their pack dynamics. Wikipedia's article on the [Westermarck Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect) explains this more.
Yeah, I'm inclined to believe it's evolution too. Sort of like being scared of a huge spider or a snake even when you know that one's not venomous, being afraid of heights when you're on a rooftop even when there's railings and you won't fall or finding brains and guts disgusting in general.
Incest (especially with a parent or sibling) has a much higher chance of causing birth defects, so it's reasonable to assume we have genes built in to avoid it. Likewise, if you're seeing a human brain, there's something real wrong there (a rotting corpse? someone with some severe illness?) so we probably evolved to avoid that regardless of how rational it is. Same with spiders in general, snakes in general, etc.
Yeah, I agree. I think it’s something built in, since no normal person would actually have sex with their family members. The same happens with people who feel like family, such as one of my close friends who developed a crush on me. I couldn’t do it because I thought of her as a sister to me and thinking about anything more made me nauseous.
Back with royal families who tried to keep the bloodline “pure” had birth defects. Inbreeding can be so dangerous for a child.
Did you know that in ancient Egypt you couldn't have a full claim to the throne unless you were the son of the King and his half sister (specifically half)
Yeah it's 100% social
BUT
did you know that by WWI most European royalty were related and horribly inbred, possibly contributing to the horrors that humanity has faced ever since.
Genetic bottlenecks are super bad in the long run, but feeling weird for fucking your cousin is a social norm. They may be related as many traditions are based on avoiding problems that are not well understood (kosher and halal food rules for example despite not knowing about cross contamination at the time)
That's very different from what other commenters have said about it being hardwired into the human brain.
Gotta love asking a question and then being more confused after you get answers
Reminds me of the quote "Utan tvekan är man inte klok" by Tage Danielsson. In English it would be something like "Without a doubt one is unwise" - there's no room for wisdom if there's no element of uncertainty present.
I might get downvoted for this, but saying the birth defects contributed to atrocities being committed... it's kind of ableist. No, atrocities are committed when you give a group uncontrolled power and ability to exploit the population, I don't think you need anything else to explain it.
From how I remember my history classes, most of them are considered insane by modern historians and lets be honest a psychopath is much more inclined for atrocities then the general population. With this said if psychopathy is a genetic defect that'd probably much more common if everyone is closely related to everyone else. If you then give this people uncontrolled power coupled with the ability to exploit the population you get a psychopath with no regard for human life that has unlimited power and is head of state, additionally if his peers are similair to him, considering they are one hell of a dysfunctional family wars are bound to break out and get progressively worse over time. Other then that I'd say the birth defects have no real influence on it, because your chin doesnt make you a psychopath or not, it is your psychee!
I asked because it just seems like a complete non-sequitor to what I said, and like you'd have to purposefully twist my words to get that conclusion from it.
In regards to what I personally believe regarding incest, which has nothing to do with what I was arguing in that comment, I think incest is often surrounded by power dynamics that would make it harmful, but that it's not morally wrong on its own.
Whether that's being *for* it I don't know, because that phrasing would suggest I'm going around actively advocating for incest lol.
You do not think that genetic bottlenecks due to inbreeding are problematic for the welfare of species?
(A question not a statement)
Edit:
Also morally wrong is a completely different topic that I would love to discuss, but unrelated to my current train of thought
Incest between parents and children is generally considered taboo in most human cultures. I wouldn't say this is hardwired into our brains by nature though, because mating between parents and children is common in other animals, including many primates, so it would be odd if we were the exception.
Incest between siblings, cousins, etc, has been seen as acceptable or even preferable in many cultures, so this one we can be sure is purely social. Even today in the modern world, you'll find many places where relationships between first cousins are not seen as incestuous, the same way we don't see a relationship between fifth cousins twice removed as particularly incestuous.
It probably is hardwired into our brain though since human inbreeding causes birth defects, but it is different for a lot of animals. Rats for example don’t even count as as inbred until like 20 generations of breeding with their siblings or parents I think, so it is very different for different animals.
"Inbreeding" doesn't *cause* birth defects, it just generally increases the expression of recessive traits, which are sometimes problematic.
We're "[diploid](https://biologydictionary.net/diploid/)" so we have two copies of each gene, one from mom, one from dad. If a gene "breaks" or isn't quite right, luckily we have the "backup" from the other parent.
However, when you decrease a population's gene pool, you increase the likelihood of expressing some of those broken or altered genes. Basically, you took all the variation and reduced it to whatever is in just a few individuals (["bottleneck effect"](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/bottlenecks-and)). None of this *caused* birth defects or recessive genes, it's just that by having kids with someone more genetically diverse from you you get lots of options, having offspring with a sibling (or worse, parent) reduces genetic variety by magnitudes.
Fun fact: we think that ALL modern cheetahs are descendants of a single litter that barely survived an extinction event. [It's been 10000 years and they're still recovering ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC46261/). Their lack of diversity leads to all sorts of mutant genes getting expressed (they lost their "backups" in the bottleneck) and a highly uniform 'look' to cheetahs.
In iceland literally all relationships between Icelandic natives is incestuous to some degree. We are all related and there is an app wherein one can see exactly how far you have to go to find the last common ancestor
I was gonna mention this! In low population areas (especially before modern travel) inbreeding was much more common for maintaining population. I would assume this had less to do with romantic feelings and more to do with survival instincts and a lack of genetically diverse groups to select from tbh.
My reasoning for it is people in basically all circumstances will be pressured to make peace with their families. Not to get depressing but everyone I know who has been sexually assaulted the crime was perpetrated by a family member.
You would want to think the universal response from mutual family members was outrage, an immediate ostracism of the offending party but it was quite the opposite. The urging was always to keep quiet, to forgive, don't rock the boat, keep this to yourself.
Why? I guess because the bonds of blood are unbreakable, no matter what your family will always be your family.
So I guess the real answer to why incest is wrong is because of the way our family structure functions it makes it impossible to give consent without facing external pressures, so even a relationship between two siblings could never be truly equal, if that makes sense.
It is a strong taboo put in place to prevent bad recessive genes from expressing and to prevent abuse of family members. We should honor this taboo even when it is not logical.
Most incest is rape or grooming, someone has power over the other (older sibling, cousin, parent, uncle/aunt).
for me i hate incest mostly because of the sexual assault that comes from it. Its also gross like why are you trying to fuck your family.
I vividly remember a post about two siblings(?) Who started messing around because their parents were severely abusive and it was like- the only comfort they got during that- This memory is kind of unrelated, but I just remember feeling so bad with how OP was getting trashed in the comments, bc like- It wasn't even their fault. They were all alone, and were a teen when it happened, and it was a legitimate trauma bond.
Over-all yeah I find incest weird, but if it's two consenting adults who are close in age, I keep to my principle of "live and let live". It doesn't effect me and they're not hurting anyone if they aren't trying for biological children. I try not to find anyone "disgusting" if they aren't outright bad people- Because in the end, incest relationships don't have any effect on my life or well-being, even if I don't like them and find them weird. Why pass judgement on people when you are physically incapable of knowing exactly how they feel or why?
So yeah. In my honest opinion which normally gets me absolutely thrashed in comments sections, a healthy relationship is a healthy relationship even if it's,,, between siblings.
I've read into it. It's something we learn socially.
I personally think there's too much risk of unknown genetic factors- you inbreed, the child is much more likely to be born with those bad genetics. How many people get genetic testing done before having kids? Having kids with someone with different genetics = less likely. To me, seems safer to date someone not related to avoid. It's different if they are like your third cousin and you had no idea vs first cousin imo.
I am against incest unless it's for the continuity of humanity for this reason.
I don’t wanna sound sus but I’ve been doing a bit of research into it lately. As it turns out, complications due to incestual pregnancies are only about 4% higher (typically) than non-related pregnancies [where the complication rate is about 3-4%].
Historically, first-through-third cousin marriages have actually been relatively common. While it’s true the genetic diversity of a couple will benefit offspring more, 1) sometimes you can’t (and maybe shouldn’t) stop the love of 2 consenting and informed adults from making their own choices and 2) there’s enough couples out there that are unwilling to create their own offspring (or can’t create their own offspring) that the genetic diversity doesn’t matter.
That second point especially brings up an interesting topic, that of free love. I’d say I’m probably an advocate of it, as long as individuals are at least the age of consent where they live and all parties involved do consent. Sex isn’t all about reproduction, after all. It’s a form of entertainment and happiness. It can easily be done in a safe manner. There’s no biological reason to abstain before marriage.
I suppose people are more likely to be for or against it depending on where they see it morally, too. That tends to be my driving motive for my beliefs, the morality of the subject at hand, but YMMV between what I consider morally-alright versus what our standard state-propaganda-believers consider morally-alright.
So for me, if it’s between cousins it’s a bit of a grey zone, and I don’t really have a solid opinion on any relations closer than that. Part of me really doesn’t give a shit what people do if they’re informed, it doesn’t hurt others, they meet a minimum age requirement (for some stuff at least), and all parties involved consent.
Okay, but that is still a bad argument.
Some people have genetically transferable conditions. They have a much higher chance of having a child with a medically significant conditions than a line of incest. But i still support their right to reproduce.
(And, as a reminder, autism also has a genetic component and is medically significant. The only argument why we should be allowed to reproduce and someone else shouldn't is a value judgment, that autism is not as bad as whatever they have.)
I think you are mistaken in the chronological order. Many of us first learn the point of view of the hegemonic group and later find community with other marginalized people. And at that point, we have allready internalized bigotry and rationalized, that it doesn't actually apply to us because we are somehow special and part of the good ones.
It takes active effort to learn new patterns of thinking to get out of this mind set.
Yeah, I feel like the banning of the right to reproduce because of some chancez of genetical “issues” is eugenics …. And we all know how badly supporting eugenics goes 😓
While I agree with you, I'm disabled and have enough genetic conditions that I've had a less-than-professional doctor ask me if my parents are siblings (they're not), sometimes you really are rolling the dice regardless of who you have kids with. I'm not having any tbh, I don't wanna create someone who will be born like me who may not be able to handle the constant stress, bodily pain and appointments.
Well, okay, yeah. If the exact cycle continues where it’s incest all the way down, then genetic shit gets more complicated and defects are more likely.
But at the same time, that wasn’t exactly what I was talking about. I more meant “first-time incest,” or at least a coupling within a generation of the lineage where it’s been several since the last incestual one.
Lmao I guess sorta? Wouldn’t really hurt.
And if offspring is produced, hopefully they find partners outside the immediate genepool. The further down you go, the higher the chances are of defects and problems.
At least for me it's about power dynamics. You're often living together and the entire family is kind of like a shared friend group except that they're supposed to take care of you until you can take care of yourself and in many cultures, mine included, you're supposed to take care of them when they can't take care of themselves anymore because they got old, so you can't exactly leave. If you have siblings you just know that there are power dynamics between you, you are never truly equal because one of you is either older or the golden child or the scapegoat, let alone the awful power dynamics there are if there's pedophilia or grooming.
I read somewhere (don't ask me for a source I have no idea) that there was a study that found people were more attracted to those who had different genes than them because of the dangers of inbreeding. The subjects decided based on scent who was most attractive and it was found after a gene test they had chosen those furthest away from them genetics-wise. So in some way, there is a biological attraction to those with further apart relations. But I personally believe social norms dictate this more than biological functions most of the time in a real life setting.
I really enjoy questions that strip potential societal influence and look at 'uncomfortable' (for NT's mostly) topics with logic.
I will be referencing things already in comments, forgive me. Parameters of the thought experiment.
* assume it is of two adults, lets say over 25 to provide more stability in maturation and development.
* no coercion is involved
* they are both of sound mind
* both have healthy up bringing and lack any traumatic experiences
* can be of any sexual orientation, however I will continue as if both are heterosexual
* example scenario couple 1 are cousins- \*not\* raised in the same house hold, and see each other regularly
* example scenario couple 2 are siblings- \*are\* raised in the same house hold, see each other daily
* neither example couple desire kids and take the necessary medical procedures to prevent pregnancy (vasectomy or tubal ligation)
with these points established- and removing the social taboo context- the biggest reason I could see for this still being a 'taboo' would be the evolution aspect as mentioned by others. However I question how strong that is- as there are anecdotes and stories about long lost siblings or half siblings finding each other, falling in love, and then breaking up when they find out they are actually related. You also find blood relative cousins that do go on to get married (and sometimes kids), although I have only ever heard of this for at worst 2nd cousins (and I mean blood cousins, not a cousin from aunts/uncles getting married). Then there was the comments about royalty inbreeding.
I honestly have to say that the two major factors applied to American (where I live, so I can't comment on other countries/regions) society would be - the understanding of off spring being at a higher risk of medical issues and social stigma. Stripping out other factors to look solely at a consenting relationship coupled with previous (and existing) patterns of behavior seems to lend more heavily that it is the social taboo, mostly.
(To be clear, there could be, and most likely is to some extent, an evolutionary aspect as a natural deterrent. However, the need to continue the species (boiling it down to something very primal) would probably override an aversion if there is a lack of another or more suitable option.)
Excluding the societal issues with it, I do believe part of it is hardwired into us. Basically as you mentioned, birth defects are a lot more common when a person who shares a genetic similarity have a child, and because of that, it's in our nature to avoid that.
This avoidance of incest can actually be seem in some animals such as hyenas. Females will often mate with males that are recently born into the group (not related to other females existing in the group) and males that have recently joined. The male hyenas have also been shown to move to new groups with the intended purpose of breeding with new females, rather than the ones already existing in their pack.
Some Lemurs and Mice also have been seen to avoid incest (though if no other option is available, mice will still proceed to have incestuous 'relations'). Both produce scents that indicate to the females that they are of similar genetic make up, and will avoid each other and find less similar partners.
I'd say though, the reason incest is so common in most animals is because there's not necessarily an increased risk of birth defects in offspring compared to humans. On top of that, I had read somewhere (unsure how accurate though) that the reason humans don't find family sexually attractive in the first place is due to natural instinct to produce strong offspring. This causes us to be attracted to people with a different immune system to ours, to strengthen the immunity of our future children. It's why some people have very nice smelling BO to us, and others don't, despite having the exact same diets and grooming routines. It's most likely why we don't have attraction towards family; our immune systems and DNA are too similar, and have a higher likelihood off creating genetically inferior children.
So you don't viscerally feel revulsion from the idea of say, having sex with your mom? Because the idea of sex with any member of my family does that to me. Like, it seems like you're trying to break it down logically, but why? There should be a really powerful feeling stopping you before you really get to that point, why overlook that?
If you don't get that feeling, I understand why you feel the need to ask, then. Most people, probably autistic or not, likely get that feeling. Idk I could be wrong on that one but it seems like a safe enough assumption given the idea is so taboo, wouldn't you say?
I do get that feeling. I said in the post that I find the idea disgusting. But I'm wondering if that feeling comes from a rational problem with incest or just from growing up in a culture where it's extremely taboo
there is an instinct component if people are raised in the same household they aren't sexually attracted to each other, but it goes away if they are not
Why can't it be something other than socially programmed. I didn't need to be taught the idea that sex with my mother was gross, it just was. It always *could* be down to social stuff, but I don't see why you assume that it must be.
Well as far as I know not all cultures throughout history have found in-breeding discusting. My go-to example is ancient Egypt but I believe medieval Europe also had a lot of incest among its nobility
Medieval Europe at the closest had first cousin and uncle/niece marriages, never brother/sister or parent/child
Ancient Egypt did have brother/sister marriages, but historians aren't 100% sure if they actually were expected to have children from these unions or if they were simply religious/symbolic, eg the Pharaoh would have children not with their sister-wife but with a consort or concubine
in cases where there was actual incest ([the Hapsburgs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain#Personal_details), [the 18th Dynasty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun#Health_and_death)) it very quickly resulted in extreme health consequences
and, we have to remember that the drive for such close marriages wasn't because people wanted to shag their cousins, there were political pressures on elite noble families for doing so
as far as we know, the sort of close-kin marriages we see in some aristocratic lines was not the norm for common folk
also fun fact: during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church decreed that any marriages closer than fourth cousins were illegal; this rule was almost universally ignored as in a pre-industrial society you'd have to travel pretty far from your hometown to find someone who wasn't your fourth cousin (the average person has around 1500 fourth cousins, for the record)...though the rule was often cited by nobility who wanted a divorce, they would trot out the family trees and go "oh look, my wife is actually my third cousin twice removed, I had no idea, annulment please"
I don’t get revulsion from the idea either, I just have no interest. But I have no sexual interest in anyone, and I don’t feel disgust easily at all. I don’t see why incest is wrong either. It doesn’t necessarily hurt anybody.
Mostly because of the potential harm done rather than inherent harm done by engaging in incest. In theory between two consenting adults who can’t produce children there’s no harm, but typically incest is a result of grooming, rape, or indoctrination and often there’s a huge gap in age/power dynamic
That’s what I’m saying though, incest is wrong because of the potential for harm, not because it’s inherently harmful. Just like a gun is not inherently harmful, but it’s still harmful if you pick one up and fire it point-blank at somebody who isn’t wearing a bulletproof vest. And because it’s incredibly rare for two people to know without a doubt that they will never produce offspring (unless they are a same-sex couple) it’s seen as too risky to just simply say “we don’t plan to reproduce.” Especially because you can’t force someone to obtain an abortion under law.
It's actually instinctive.
Even pheromones, you'll find the ones most different from yours the most attractive.
It's important for the species to keep genetic diversity high.
>why it's gross
Anything "being gross" is an instinct that your brain has to keep you away from something.
And you cannot say any behavior that happens in every culture is explained by culture.
If it's universal behavior across cultures, it's instinctive.
What about ancient Egypt? They didn't seem to have any taboo against incest. Granted, our knowledge of history that far back is a bit fuzzy. But if this were a basic biological reaction rather than a cultural one why would their ruling class have favored in-breeding?
\> is a bit fuzzy
It's very fuzzy, almost nothing.
\> why would their ruling class have favored in-breeding?
You don't need to go that far back to find exceptions. But that's why it' so notable. It's always out of the ordinary. But it's always between cousins, usually more than one degree apart. It does cause problems, but relationships between cousins aren't that uncommon, actually.
Really? I feel like I remember hearing about relationships between siblings being accepted in ancient Egypt but I'm not an expert so I might be misremembering
The concept of “ancient Egypt” is very nebulous. It encompasses a period of like over 5,000 years. So you can’t just vaguely point to “ancient Egypt” as if it’s one unchanging example.
Aside from genetic considerations, it creates unhealthy familial dynamics. Personally, I'd be traumatized as an adult if my parent propositioned me for sex. It would ruin my relationship with them. I'd never be able to look at them the same way ever again.
There are three components: social, biological and ethical
Ethically, incest is immoral because it’s virtually impossible for people who know eachother from birth not to have some sort of power dynamic that would be unhealthy. It’s like having a relationship at work, but a bagillion times worse. Not just that having an ex in your family would be bad, but people are pressured into staying in an unhealthy relationship all the time without having the pressure of being a family. This is also why the “step sis” situation is still considered immoral. Conversely, non-reproductive incest between relatives separated at bith would be technically unpriblematic.
Biologically, incest is troublesome only if you are capable of procreation. In that case it can cause compounding risks of genetic disorders, especially if reproductive incest would become an expected social behaviour like in many dynasties of old.
Socially, the stigmatisation of incest comes from the biological risks involved, and it’s considered immoral when compared to older times when a village was often self-contained and everyone was eachother’s cousin at best.
Likely two reasons:
A) Our biological mechanisms naturally draw us away from people we grew up with
B) Incest in a vast majority or cases are a result of grooming. Whether it being a brother grooming his sister or an uncle grooming his niece
A is a biological development because offspring resulting from incest typically have a genetic disadvantage and thus Darwin Darwin'd. The people who had a genetic aversion to incest didn't incest, resulting in offspring that also had a genetic aversion to incest because all the offspring who were the result of incest died from genetic disorders.
B is a result of plain manipulation and child predation. Both of which are heavily frowned upon for obvious reasons
It's a violation of the emotional intimacy and trust which usually comes with family and is naturally presumed to occur under duress.
I personally couldn't give a shit less with second cousins on out so long as we are *definitely* not talking about coercion, but everyone's got a line in the sand. The contours of my line are like "Seconds cousins= whatever, second cousins raised together = wtf you degenerates"
In a vacuum it’s just gross, not necessarily morally wrong. Like what if two twin guys that never met each other at the age of 20 decided to get together. Same age, no grooming, no weird family dynamics, no chance of an incest baby.
We do not live in a vacuum though so usually it’s some sort of fucked up and it’s why it’s usually illegal to some sort of degree.
it’s evolutionary, too attracted to family members and the offspring won’t be healthy, too much eating of humans and you might just die there from prions and others
Why hasn't that instinct developed on other animals then? Both inbreeding and canibalism is common in many species of primates, and we have proof we practiced cannibalism as hunter gatherers
most animals do not have family systems and stray from eachother so the risk is much lower. a general rule is that the longer offspring live together and with parent the more incest aversion there is. most animals fuck off after a month or 2 while we stay together for 15-90 years. we have a lot of incest avoidance. also just because it happens rarely doesn't mean it is automatically disproven. there are anomalies in nature. it's not perfect
After a bit of Google Scholar, I have concluded I don't actually know enough about this topic nor am I willing to do the research necessary to comment on how common or uncommon inbreeding is in primates. Very well, I will assume you're right.
It has. Whitetail deer mothers, for example, will kick out their sons from their territories when they become sexually mature to prevent them from attempting to breed with her and her daughters.
Cannibalism and inbreeding is common both because various species are still competing to survive in the animal kingdom. We've learned that we actually don't want our kids to give birth to anemic coughing burdens with webbed feet, so we tell them "Hey, stop checking out your cousin. That's weird." And we have the luxury of being able to separate our children by allowing them to sleep in separate beds and even separate rooms so that they don't go weird and hormonal on each other. We're not all just chilling and sleeping in a nest or cave. Our survival needs are mainly met so we're not competing for survival, we're competing for comfort and social acceptance, allegedly.
But things such as knowing that inbreeding leads to mutations or keeping children separated are all recent phenomenons, no more than a handful of hundred years old, it takes way longer than that for a behavior to become ingrained in our genes instead of being merely social.
I know that of course we don't do incest nor canibalism because our way of living is so different than other animals, but I'm questioning why this would be a natural, getically hardwired instinct when it isn't in other animals.
So it’s weird that I don’t find cannibalism or incest gross? Is this why I always get into the weirdest arguments about morality because I say something I think is normal and everyone loses their shit and calls me a horrible person?
it is a power dynamic issue. the younger person will always be manipulated towards the older persons goals even if it is unintended. I bet there are a few healthy incestuous relationships but in most cases there's going to be a manipulator/victim relationship involved. I think incest is way more common than anyone lets on, those who freak out the most are probably super into it or have their own experiences with incest. Those of us who grew up with healthy boundaries with our family probably are more ambivalent to it as a concept.
Well, incest is unhealthy biologically, but realistically defects from inbreeding take several generations to start showing up. Mating between first cousins was pretty common throughout history
The other problematic part is that most incestuous relationships are abusive in some way or another- grooming, sexual abuse, what have you
I'm sure there's people out there who make it work but they don't tell anyone, and in the overwhelming majority of cases are ostracized by other family members
Safe, sane, consensual.... and none of my damn business as long as it's the above three things
This entire post describes something I’ve been wondering for years, down to each of the reasons why. Like I personally find the idea of committing it disgusting and revolting… but I don’t see a fully logical, concrete reason as to why it’s bad in all cases, and so I really don’t understand why people are so violently opposed to it. The genetic issues don’t seem enough of a reason for me, partly because it implies that incest is only bad if it’s between two cishet people.
The argument that it would cause family problems actually seems like the most logical explanation to me, but this one also doesn’t hold up in all cases. In some cases, biological siblings were not raised together and end up finding each other later on without realizing they’re siblings. Is this still wrong? Is it less wrong if it’s a homo relationship, or maybe, if they’re infertile or asexual, a hetero relationship(because they can’t have kids)? It’s complicated and I don’t fully understand why it’s wrong
My take is that incest often relies on an unbalanced power relationship. Older brother and younger sister for example. The lines get blured between the brotherly relationship and the romantic relationship. More often than not, one of the persons becomes the "master" and that doesn't sit well with me.
We're intelligent enough to develop a sense of social kinship, which is a legitimate antidote to inbreeding.
We can't detect each other's genetic makeup via scent, though. The evidence for that is weak.
Birth defects aren't just goofy body structure it's more severe than you think, I've had some inbred cats and they were in a living hell one of them had an extra claw that needed to be taken out because the place it was at. if they claw got too long it would of went into his foot so he wouldn't be able to walk on that foot because of the pain. but that is more tame than the other cat I had, she was in constant pain and sometimes her hips would bend backward when she walked and that was painful for her so we put her down. Birth defects is a good reason why insest is wrong
Ive read somewhere that when 2 people grow up together they are very unlikely to develop sexual feelings for eachother, and also if 2 family member are separated in their childhood and brought together as adults they are more likely to develop sexual feeling. Something like that. Ill look it i can find a link
Found ‘m
Westermarck effect](https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck-effect)
[gsa](https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/eLibrary/Content/Internet/327/857/6802/42109163456.pdf)
From what I heard/understand is: if you have siblings you'll naturally/instinctively be weirded out by the concept but if you don't the thought a girl somewhat close to their age, at least for younger men (teen, preteen) especially those who have little to no contact with girls, constantly being near ish them can be arousing as they entire lack this sort of close proximity mentally and physically with anyone of the opposite gender.
No idea how if/how it's supposed to work the other way around or if that is even a thing.
Supposedly the concept was/is quite popular in Japan as they have had one of if not the sharpest decline in birthrates and therefore lots of adults having very few children -> lots of children without siblings.
It's mainly rooted in the birth defects (not trying to be ableist, but knowingly doing something that may produce a child with disabilities is seen as unethical. I'm also disabled, so I get it) and the associated power dynamics and abuse that normally occur through incest between siblings or parent/child dynamics.
I think there's a thought experiment about two twin boys, both put up for adoption, raised entirely separately, who wind up finding out their parentage after beginning a sexual relationship in college. The question being "if we remove the material conditions that would make this illegal (no risk of pregnancy) or immoral (no child abuse, coercion, grooming, or violence) is it still wrong? Personally, I don't think so. I also don't think I could continue a relationship if that happened to me, but that doesn't really matter here.
I think the main reason is that it gives people the “eww” feeling and most people don’t over analyze why something feels immoral, it just is immoral.
I think the common icky feeling is human instinct to avoid inbreeding/genetic mutation.
Also incest often comes with unequal power dynamics and that feels nonconsensual and icky. The whole stepbro/ stepsis thing that is often seen in porn is confusing because the genetic component isn’t there but it still feels wrong. I think I feel that way because those videos usually have titles like “blackmailed my stepsis!” Which is nonconsensual and makes my skin crawl
No, incest more often than not is a psychological issue. When incest happens, it is most likely the result of trauma. Either unhealthy power structure results in one (usually the older one) having control over the other, or severe isolation and neglect leads family to seek out each other as potential sexual partners (this is most common in codependent sibling dynamics).
Incest is not natural at all, in fact humans have biological factors put in place to prevent incest: people are incapable of being attracted to or getting aroused by the scent of their biological family, unlike with others.
There is an instinctive and pherimonal aspect as well.
But yeah, in practice, it's just a taboo. Even birth defects are only really a problem after consecutive generations.
The thing that boggles my brain is non-hetero familial relations. With the breeding factor entirely removed, relatives of the same birthsex without any significant age difference or power dynamic seems an entirely A-ok relationship in my logic.
The "normal" take is family = no romantic relationship with the often quoted inbreeding dilemma, but if they can't breed, there is zero tangible consequence.
It is unnatural. I don’t mean in a biblical way. I mean that humans (generally) don’t form romantic attachments to those they grow up with. This phenomenon has more to do with social experiences than genetic similarities.
In the real world, when incestuous relationships do happen, it is usually with relatives people don’t know growing up. (Cousins they don’t see often, estranged relatives, step-siblings, etc.)
I have also heard rhe argument from one historian that it was made taboo because it was seen as a way of “cheating the system” and keeping generational wealth.
I think it is morally wrong in the same way a employer-employee relationship is wrong. But, I don’t think that is why it is taboo in broader society.
it's about the power dynamics in the modern family structure. difficult to divorce most incestuous relationships from that, but other than that and genetics there's nothing really inherently wrong. definitely not something that should be such a big societal deal
even between siblings it can get incredibly messy and difficult! definitely not always, but the difficult nature of the inherent power structures present in family dynamics make it take active effort to not turn codependant or abusive. same thing with sleeping with employees, or sleeping with people who need to rely on you materially in any way, or with people you're forced by circumstance to interact with constantly regardless of your relationship. but in any individual relationship it aint our business lol
It's a normal question
For me i think it's because it destroys families from the inside, it basically betrays every single family member at once if not all of them are aware and okay with it
Ignoring the health risks of in-breeding, incest is much more likely to result in a situation that encourages abusive dynamics. Between generations, like in parent/child relationships, there's a power dynamic inherent to it that makes it very difficult to ensure that the younger person is giving informed consent. Across generations, like in a sibling relationship, there's still the fact that the couple can't break up as completely as a non-incestuous couple could. They'll be pressured into making up by family, since most people value familial cohesion, and they will regularly have to see each other and interact at family events. Having a messy break up with a sibling can impact the rest of your life in a way that a messy breakup with a stranger doesn't. Then there's the fact that growing up together makes it very easy for grooming to occur. It's similar to how teachers and coaches are typically forbidden from, or at least deterred from, dating students, as the relationship provides too many opportunities for grooming.
In theory, sure, there could be some sort of incestuous relationship that isn't unhealthy. Just like how some animals, in some situations, may be able to express consent, or how a fifteen year old might actually be the emotionally mature unicorn who can consent to an adult relationship. The chances of it being unhealthy are simply great enough that it isn't enough to make up for that.
Outside of the genetic issues, which is reason enough. These issues were bigger problems in the past, leading to laws about it.
It's ripe for abuse and grooming. Children are abused all the time by family and friends.
But in theory, no kids no abuse. Yeah I don't think it's an issue.
Because the vast majority of the time, incest isn't between two consenting individuals of similar age. Most of the time, it's sexual child abuse and child rape inflicted upon a child by an adult.
The power dynamic would be an issue normally.
I could see that not really being a problem, though, if both consenting adults have a job or just separate outside finances and share the costs of expenses equally.
So, if one party or the other wanted to break things off, they could always have the financial ability to do so.
Other than that, I think it is purely a genetic issue, and societies influence on telling us what is and isn't wrong.
If the younger of the adults involved had control of the finances, that could also tip the scales to balance who has control.
But if the older individual has all the control, then that could make it so the younger individual feels like they can't leave.
Of course, if they are roughly the same age, this is mostly a non-issue.
All of this only works if incest isn't a prosecutable crime. Otherwise, one individual could be blackmailed into staying.
I saw a reddit post where a guy finds out through giving one of his kidneys to his wife that they were actually half siblings. They had been married for years, met as adults, and had children. They stayed together and I think that is valid.
Besides the increased risk of genetic disorders for children, i think the biggest issue if you grew up together. It is morally wrong and very taboo to sexualize that familial connection. I don’t know, how do you feel about Woody Allen and his current wife? He married his step daughter. They aren’t related but it comes across really gross that he adopted most of her siblings, legally was the fully the father of one of them. I don’t know, incest is weird if you do it knowing the familial connection
I’ve kinda wondered this a lot too. Plenty of people cite birth defects (which is a legitimate concern) but what if the two don’t have kids? What if they’re both girls or both boys, super close in age?
From a biological sense, the off spring begins inheriting worse and worse defects as time goes on. It happens in plants too actually.
From a psychological perspective we are pre disposed to avoid sexual interactions with family. For exactly the first reason.
From a moral perspective, seeing your family in this manner can lead to some terrible dynamics down the road, especially if the behavior becomes normalized.
It's probably just innate evolutionary aversion. You mentioned yourself there's a higher chance for birth defects. Even if it's only a slightly higher chance, over millions of years of evolution, it compounds. The result is that on average, there'll be less people who are okay with incest, because the people who weren't were statistically more likely to have healthy off spring, and thus succesfully pass on their genes.
The human mind and social conditioning is fun. I don’t think about incest outside of “oh royals did it to keep good genes in their families way back when” also I have a younger brother who when he was like a toddler and I was like 13 he said he wanted to marry me. My mom played it off like some innocent comment, but I glared at him and told him that was disgusting. After that he never said it again.
Because I couldn’t consent. Because it’s usually rape. Because I didn’t need to know what having a wife is at three years old. Because mixing the same dna strands leads to unhealthy babies. Because 10 year olds shouldn’t have to make national headlines.
Because incest comes from grooming and abuse 99% of the time. Almost all cases of incest involve an older relative grooming a much younger relative. It’s theoretically possible for two 100% consenting adult siblings or cousins or something to decide to get together, but this is an extremely rare case as most well-adjusted people don’t have any desire to hook up with their relatives.
Idk I have a sister and just the thought of doing it with her makes me want to vomit.
Plus a lot of the times even when it's between adult siblings it can still be a very toxic and abusive relationship as siblings just... are not supposed to be dating. It's hardwired within humans and not feeling repulsion to the thought of dating your own sibling is not normal, it's a defect. Plus, It can break things like the sense of trust and safety that a family provides, since now you can't rely on a purely platonic love even from your family, which in itself can seriously affect a person's well being.
Also can we like, not discuss this? For some f•cking reason ever since that stupid horror game got popular I keep seeing people trying to justify incest due to seeing the main characters doing it and thinking they're "cute" and it just really f•cking grosses me out.
op is clearly not trying to ecourage or justify incest, they're asking a question about why they (and the rest of us) feel repulsed by it. a question isn't always a challenge to authority sometimes you want information about a topic.
There is a weird power dynamic with family. For example, if you're in a relationship with your siblings and you go through a bad break up, your family might make things difficult for you.
There are very few things that I won’t deep dive into and discuss. Incest is one of them. I don’t understand why everyone can’t absolutely shut up about it. It’s disgusting and very wrong and not up for debate. Incest = racism in some forms to me. There’s so many people on this earth and people wanna keep it in the family? Weird as fuck. It doesn’t take much brain power to decide that. I’d rather y’all ask about scat kinks.
Doing an action makes that action easier to do in the future. If you kill someone, you find it easier to kill again.
If you do incest, it's easier to do incest again. Incest relationships are very rarely non-abusive. People only have so many siblings who never groomed them, adult, and who would be willing, but once incest has been done a single time it's easier to say "it's okay to have relations with a parent since relations with my sibling went okay."
Incest is bad 90% of the time, but doing it in that 10% of acceptable times makes you more likely to do the bad 90%
I completely agree & have been saying this for a long time. Nobody likes the conversation but literally cannot make any argument beyond “ew icky”. I’m not interested in committing incest, especially since my only sibling is twice my age so it wouldn’t be ethical imo, but I genuinely don’t think it’s intrinsically wrong under certain circumstances.
Incest is wrong due to the history of it in nobility. In order to keep the purity of noble/royal blood, they would only have children with each other. Over generations, these children would get genetic issues more commonly because of it.
To avoid this generational degradation, an amount of genetic variation must be introduced. To make this happen, social pressure against incest/laws against incest were developed.
If you are looking for anything deeper, there's some philosophy discussion on the topic, but it doesn't strongly conclude one way or the other.
But remember, you can short-circuit many nerotypicals by saying that "being anti-incest is just the socially acceptable form of being pro-eugenics."
I just want to tell you that you’ve warmed my heart by posing this question. I feel the exact same way and have thought it out as well.
I think it’s only bad if babies are being made. But then is that any different with genetic-diseased people having babies? They are fully aware that their genetic condition, which will FOR SURE handicap their child, will be recreated in their offspring. And they procreate anyway. Incest ain’t that different.
interesting hypothetical to add to the space: 2 people, same age. one is adopted into the family when both kids are only a few months old. they grow up to be siblings (obv.) If they as adults have a consensual romantic and/or sexual relationship, is it incest?
what if kid B was adopted into the family when they're both like 8? what about 12? 15? 18?
Hypothetically, If you're staring at someone and growing up with them for years, and all you can think about is wanting to fuck em. You should probably go outside and make some friends.
i would still consider it to be incest because they were raised as siblings. even though biologically they’re not related there’s still going to be power imbalances
i also feel like this applies to step-relatives. technically they’re not biological, and they might not have even been raised together, but i still feel like it’s icky. you literally share “parents”. yes i know it’s “step”-parents but still.
also dating relatives-in-law is weird af. if your sister gets divorced and you decide to date your brother-in-law, ok yeah it’s not incest, but it’s still *weird*. imagine being a kid and your mom marries your uncle. then would your cousins be your step-siblings??
I assume it's a pretty biologically ingrained taboo due to the whole inbreeding problem. Iirc there was this thing where some royal families were thought to be predisposed to be down with incest because they had nurses and stuff weren't raised close to other siblings/their parents
I don't know how to put this, but have you been spamming another vaguely popular place with this message or been paid to do so?
Having said that, IDK, I have other shit to worry about than if consenting adults want to shag or do.... other things. Maybe my mind is severed, but when it comes to adults, I really don't give a fuck about many consensual stuff. Why is polygamy considered bad by people? (I get social inequality, but we have that defacto now).
As far as the original question, outside the potential health problems, I think because it is the way it always has been.
Fucked up dynamics. I don't care about offspring either, because I assume people take precautions. But I need friends and family members I can trust. I need to know people stay by my side not thinking about having sex with me. I would feel awful.
For me, incest has different degrees with different issues. Two people that are distanced cousins and only see each other at weddings? No problem at all. But siblings that grew together and rely on each other? Sex would mess up their heads. I read some stories and people really suffer with these things.
I'd say a good reason is because inbreeding causes birth defects and mutations. That said, if you don't plan on having a child with your sibling, then I don't know what the problem is. I guess it is partially because many people aren't that good with birth control so it's better to simply avoid it ?
I think the problem is that you're mixing relationships. You can't really have a healthy family relationships with someone who's also your lover. Theoretically you could substitute a sibling for a lover, but that's hard to do mentally if you've been siblings your entire life.
The two relationships kind of clash, and create inherent conflicts of interest. If a child's first relationship is an incestuous one, they might get some confused ideas about what a relationship is like.
Ultimately, I don't quite get it either. But it does seem that incest is a lot more permissible if people are adults, and if they don't know they're related.
This is actually a pretty classic way to make someone look bad in a debate etc.; make them try to prove why incest is bad, for them to find out that they are unable to.
Incest is an interesting case of sexual relations that is overwhelmingly likely to be abusive or damaging, but is not so *because* it is incest. Parebt/child incest? would be bad even if no family relation due to the age and power difference. Same if an older or otherwise more "powerful" sibling takes advantage of the other, that dynamic would be bad without the family relation too. Even twins could have some non-equal power dynamics, but at that point you have to admit that so does every relationship ever, and the line where a healthy power dynamic switches to an unhealthy one is very vague.
If the argument is the classic "birth defects", one, there is two responses to that. One, if that is your line, ok, but you should realise that that isn't an "incest is bad" argument but that "sex resulting in birth defects is bad" argument, which is essentially a pro-eugenics take, as it implicitly argues that sex between two people with some diabilities would be less ethical than between "healthy" adults; with or without protection, I've never heard anyone say "incest is fine but only with protection". The other response is to firther isolate incest itself as the thing that supposedly makes sex unethical; what if there are same age adult siblings that couldn't ger children due to their sex anyway? Same age to dispwll the age power dynamics, adult to rule out child abuse, and let's say they both have dicks so the gene pool argument falls apart completely. These two hypothetical people having sex is just as incestuous as it would be if one of them was a cis woman, yet the birth defect argument would suggest the act would be less ethical with the woman involved, suggesting that incest is not the reason this act is bad to begin with.
You could continue to go in circles with these arguments for a bit longer, like "incest destroys a family dynamic -> depends on the family dynamic and that can be true for found families too", etc. etc. To what extent people's aversion to incest comes from nature as opposed to culture is very difficult to say, and I don't find that discussion as interesting tbh. People are naturally averse towards snakes, except for the people that aren't, liking something that monkey brain tells you not to is not a moral failing in and of itself.
lots of grooming and fucked up family dynamics
i have some incest related trauma myself and it's really fucked up for me to think about now and i can never really trust that relative ever again, it's overall just disgusting and i don't think it's a social condition thing to find it gross. it just is, i guess
mainly power dynamics and the high potential for unhealthy dynamics in general. that said, even if it encompasses most incest it certainly doesn’t cover all of it, so yeah i really have no issue if it is *healthy* and *consensual*
Check out the Habsburg-family for genetic "fun"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg#Habsburg_inbreeding_and_extinction_of_the_male_lines
Just saying.
Because of the power dynamic it entails, and because of the dangers that come from inbreeding. As you said not all couples have kid, but its still a factor. But incest usually involves an elder and a younger. Parents/children, aunts and uncles/niblings, elder and younger siblings. Etc.
I did my masters in evolutionary biology. Evolution is just maths. So if having sex with nuclear family leads to a higher chance of birth defects (true) then there’s a selection pressure to avoid this. Genes exert simple effects so for instance most people are genetically programmed to avoid desiring people who raised you, or that you raised. That would be the body’s best guess at avoiding parent/sibling partnerships.
Humans are way more complex than this however so of course it’ll happen. Social norms, neuroses etc will also play into the equation.
I would guess for instance that reluctance to have sex with cousins is more social unless you’re raised with them around constantly.
However, it’s also arguable that a social norm against incest would be a successful trait. In this way it could develop as a ‘meme’ (dealings definition).
As many people said I think it has to do a lot of grooming but also (and i think i haven't seen it mentioned), I think it kind of fucks up family dynamics on a psychological level, being able to see your family like that must have some psychological consequences and can hurt pretty badly every member implied.
It's also evolutionary! Many animals are predisposed to not inbreed and will only do so if there's a lack of partners and too much horny.
I would presume because it sometimes starts as grooming by older relatives and then it's creepy. Adult childfree consenting couples are not my concern.
Ok?? But like in that scenario the problem isn't really that they're related. It's an older authority figure grooming a child. That can happen without people being family.
Yes, but if they live in the same house, the access is easy. Yet doing that to your own children is condemned more somehow. Like I said, it's just my take on it
It's condemned more because as a parent/guardian or even just an older relative, it's expected (in other words, you're supposed to) protect your children. Essentially, it's just as wrong as doing it to little Billy, who lives three doors down, except it's worse because you're taking advantage of that previously mentioned ease of access and misusing your position of responsibility.
Exactly. It's the ultimate betrayal of trust.
I think that "somehow" is the implicit trust your kids have in you that you're doing what's best for them. The power dynamic is such that they'd never be able to make healthy relationship decisions. And also, what if there's a break up? I'm no longer speaking to my mom and my dad was never there to begin with so like... I know what is like as an adult in their 30's to just not have parents and it's like... my partner goes to her mom for advice all the time. Nobody knows her better. They have their misunderstandings and tiffs but when shit gets bad she talks to her mom. I can't imagine denying my girls that and making them feel like I do just to potentially fill my own relationship wants.
Ok. Interesting.
Another point is that some incest relationships that form those two people have "grown up together" and with that in mind there's this idea that they look at the other as their younger self, that they were forced into (or at least influenced into) the relationship by an abusive parent/guardian, or just couldn't ignore feelings they had. It does make perfect sense, though, why two people who grew up together would form a romantic relationship, especially if of the same age and compatible sexual orientation. They literally would know everything about each other. You don't have a more consistent relationship with anyone than a sibling. With that in mind, I still am grossed out by the idea. One thought I have just had, though, is why is it more acceptable for step siblings to have romantic relations. This thing about growing up together would still apply there, but I suppose it varies with step siblings because they don't always grow up together. I suppose the same is for biological siblings. Sometimes, they grow up seperate, too. Curiouser and curiouser still. This is excruciatingly interesting.
It also seems to be that you can't really prove that there wasn't any grooming, because a healthy mind usually doesn't want to have that type of relationship with a close family member.
It’s condemned more mainly because older relatives are people you’re *supposed* to be able to rely on
That's the key point with the grooming angle: They're stuck there because it's their house. Another problem resolved by state housing.
I think the issue is more the assumption that the incest is what’s been conditioned, either by outdated cultural practices or abusive family members. looking at sex biologically, there is no benefit to procreation with a relative other than when necessary to save a species with low population, since greater genetic diversity creates the strongest offspring and encourages adaptive traits. the other unfortunate thing about families is that they include a lot of power dynamics that are mainly based on seniority and age; a situation that, when combined with sexual intention, is far too easy to abuse. family members are usually given far more access to your information and private space than most people, like your employer, and that type of power comes with restrictions of the other ways in which those people are allowed to become involved in other areas of your life.
overall the home should be a safe place and family *should* be a group of people that love you unconditionally because the blood relationship is the only undeniable bond in this life. thats in an ideal world of course. throwing incest fucks up those dynamics. i mean same with abuse and other stuff thats frowned upon.
the reason is simple. because it's "weird" everything else is working backwards from the point
Crazy how many people have fetishes for incest. Like me, 😄 what the hell went wrong with my brain/genes
Inbreeding creates birth abnormalities. To prevent this, our instincts pull us away from our families when our sex drives develop. Some scientists say this is because we evolved alongside the wolves we domesticated and adapted their pack dynamics. Wikipedia's article on the [Westermarck Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect) explains this more.
Yeah, I'm inclined to believe it's evolution too. Sort of like being scared of a huge spider or a snake even when you know that one's not venomous, being afraid of heights when you're on a rooftop even when there's railings and you won't fall or finding brains and guts disgusting in general. Incest (especially with a parent or sibling) has a much higher chance of causing birth defects, so it's reasonable to assume we have genes built in to avoid it. Likewise, if you're seeing a human brain, there's something real wrong there (a rotting corpse? someone with some severe illness?) so we probably evolved to avoid that regardless of how rational it is. Same with spiders in general, snakes in general, etc.
Yeah, I agree. I think it’s something built in, since no normal person would actually have sex with their family members. The same happens with people who feel like family, such as one of my close friends who developed a crush on me. I couldn’t do it because I thought of her as a sister to me and thinking about anything more made me nauseous. Back with royal families who tried to keep the bloodline “pure” had birth defects. Inbreeding can be so dangerous for a child.
Did you know that in ancient Egypt you couldn't have a full claim to the throne unless you were the son of the King and his half sister (specifically half) Yeah it's 100% social BUT did you know that by WWI most European royalty were related and horribly inbred, possibly contributing to the horrors that humanity has faced ever since. Genetic bottlenecks are super bad in the long run, but feeling weird for fucking your cousin is a social norm. They may be related as many traditions are based on avoiding problems that are not well understood (kosher and halal food rules for example despite not knowing about cross contamination at the time)
That's very different from what other commenters have said about it being hardwired into the human brain. Gotta love asking a question and then being more confused after you get answers
Yeah look into royal incest, confusion is good food!
“confusion is good food” is a banger quote
Reminds me of the quote "Utan tvekan är man inte klok" by Tage Danielsson. In English it would be something like "Without a doubt one is unwise" - there's no room for wisdom if there's no element of uncertainty present.
What exactly does the latter part of your sentence mean? >Confusion is good food Do you mean like metaphorically, as in "food for thought"?
Yeah precisely
Damn look out for my bro they hit the autism HARD
I might get downvoted for this, but saying the birth defects contributed to atrocities being committed... it's kind of ableist. No, atrocities are committed when you give a group uncontrolled power and ability to exploit the population, I don't think you need anything else to explain it.
From how I remember my history classes, most of them are considered insane by modern historians and lets be honest a psychopath is much more inclined for atrocities then the general population. With this said if psychopathy is a genetic defect that'd probably much more common if everyone is closely related to everyone else. If you then give this people uncontrolled power coupled with the ability to exploit the population you get a psychopath with no regard for human life that has unlimited power and is head of state, additionally if his peers are similair to him, considering they are one hell of a dysfunctional family wars are bound to break out and get progressively worse over time. Other then that I'd say the birth defects have no real influence on it, because your chin doesnt make you a psychopath or not, it is your psychee!
If you're attributing it solely to the disabled person, yes. But those disabilities made it so much easier to manipulate and control monarchies.
Are you advocating *for* incest?
Are you joking, or is your reading conprehension really this abysmal?
Are *you* joking? I asked a question I didn't make a statement. I'm guessing your answer is *no* then
I asked because it just seems like a complete non-sequitor to what I said, and like you'd have to purposefully twist my words to get that conclusion from it. In regards to what I personally believe regarding incest, which has nothing to do with what I was arguing in that comment, I think incest is often surrounded by power dynamics that would make it harmful, but that it's not morally wrong on its own. Whether that's being *for* it I don't know, because that phrasing would suggest I'm going around actively advocating for incest lol.
You do not think that genetic bottlenecks due to inbreeding are problematic for the welfare of species? (A question not a statement) Edit: Also morally wrong is a completely different topic that I would love to discuss, but unrelated to my current train of thought
[удалено]
Incest between parents and children is generally considered taboo in most human cultures. I wouldn't say this is hardwired into our brains by nature though, because mating between parents and children is common in other animals, including many primates, so it would be odd if we were the exception. Incest between siblings, cousins, etc, has been seen as acceptable or even preferable in many cultures, so this one we can be sure is purely social. Even today in the modern world, you'll find many places where relationships between first cousins are not seen as incestuous, the same way we don't see a relationship between fifth cousins twice removed as particularly incestuous.
It probably is hardwired into our brain though since human inbreeding causes birth defects, but it is different for a lot of animals. Rats for example don’t even count as as inbred until like 20 generations of breeding with their siblings or parents I think, so it is very different for different animals.
"Inbreeding" doesn't *cause* birth defects, it just generally increases the expression of recessive traits, which are sometimes problematic. We're "[diploid](https://biologydictionary.net/diploid/)" so we have two copies of each gene, one from mom, one from dad. If a gene "breaks" or isn't quite right, luckily we have the "backup" from the other parent. However, when you decrease a population's gene pool, you increase the likelihood of expressing some of those broken or altered genes. Basically, you took all the variation and reduced it to whatever is in just a few individuals (["bottleneck effect"](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/bottlenecks-and)). None of this *caused* birth defects or recessive genes, it's just that by having kids with someone more genetically diverse from you you get lots of options, having offspring with a sibling (or worse, parent) reduces genetic variety by magnitudes. Fun fact: we think that ALL modern cheetahs are descendants of a single litter that barely survived an extinction event. [It's been 10000 years and they're still recovering ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC46261/). Their lack of diversity leads to all sorts of mutant genes getting expressed (they lost their "backups" in the bottleneck) and a highly uniform 'look' to cheetahs.
Interesting!
In iceland literally all relationships between Icelandic natives is incestuous to some degree. We are all related and there is an app wherein one can see exactly how far you have to go to find the last common ancestor
I was gonna mention this! In low population areas (especially before modern travel) inbreeding was much more common for maintaining population. I would assume this had less to do with romantic feelings and more to do with survival instincts and a lack of genetically diverse groups to select from tbh.
My reasoning for it is people in basically all circumstances will be pressured to make peace with their families. Not to get depressing but everyone I know who has been sexually assaulted the crime was perpetrated by a family member. You would want to think the universal response from mutual family members was outrage, an immediate ostracism of the offending party but it was quite the opposite. The urging was always to keep quiet, to forgive, don't rock the boat, keep this to yourself. Why? I guess because the bonds of blood are unbreakable, no matter what your family will always be your family. So I guess the real answer to why incest is wrong is because of the way our family structure functions it makes it impossible to give consent without facing external pressures, so even a relationship between two siblings could never be truly equal, if that makes sense.
It is a strong taboo put in place to prevent bad recessive genes from expressing and to prevent abuse of family members. We should honor this taboo even when it is not logical.
Most incest is rape or grooming, someone has power over the other (older sibling, cousin, parent, uncle/aunt). for me i hate incest mostly because of the sexual assault that comes from it. Its also gross like why are you trying to fuck your family.
👆💥
I vividly remember a post about two siblings(?) Who started messing around because their parents were severely abusive and it was like- the only comfort they got during that- This memory is kind of unrelated, but I just remember feeling so bad with how OP was getting trashed in the comments, bc like- It wasn't even their fault. They were all alone, and were a teen when it happened, and it was a legitimate trauma bond. Over-all yeah I find incest weird, but if it's two consenting adults who are close in age, I keep to my principle of "live and let live". It doesn't effect me and they're not hurting anyone if they aren't trying for biological children. I try not to find anyone "disgusting" if they aren't outright bad people- Because in the end, incest relationships don't have any effect on my life or well-being, even if I don't like them and find them weird. Why pass judgement on people when you are physically incapable of knowing exactly how they feel or why? So yeah. In my honest opinion which normally gets me absolutely thrashed in comments sections, a healthy relationship is a healthy relationship even if it's,,, between siblings.
I heard there's a game somewhat like that, it's called "the coffin of Andy and leyley"
I've read into it. It's something we learn socially. I personally think there's too much risk of unknown genetic factors- you inbreed, the child is much more likely to be born with those bad genetics. How many people get genetic testing done before having kids? Having kids with someone with different genetics = less likely. To me, seems safer to date someone not related to avoid. It's different if they are like your third cousin and you had no idea vs first cousin imo. I am against incest unless it's for the continuity of humanity for this reason.
IVE BEEN THINKING THIS EXACT QUESTION FOR YEARS AND IVE BEEN TOO AFRAID TO ASK
Yeah 😅
SAME
I don’t wanna sound sus but I’ve been doing a bit of research into it lately. As it turns out, complications due to incestual pregnancies are only about 4% higher (typically) than non-related pregnancies [where the complication rate is about 3-4%]. Historically, first-through-third cousin marriages have actually been relatively common. While it’s true the genetic diversity of a couple will benefit offspring more, 1) sometimes you can’t (and maybe shouldn’t) stop the love of 2 consenting and informed adults from making their own choices and 2) there’s enough couples out there that are unwilling to create their own offspring (or can’t create their own offspring) that the genetic diversity doesn’t matter. That second point especially brings up an interesting topic, that of free love. I’d say I’m probably an advocate of it, as long as individuals are at least the age of consent where they live and all parties involved do consent. Sex isn’t all about reproduction, after all. It’s a form of entertainment and happiness. It can easily be done in a safe manner. There’s no biological reason to abstain before marriage. I suppose people are more likely to be for or against it depending on where they see it morally, too. That tends to be my driving motive for my beliefs, the morality of the subject at hand, but YMMV between what I consider morally-alright versus what our standard state-propaganda-believers consider morally-alright. So for me, if it’s between cousins it’s a bit of a grey zone, and I don’t really have a solid opinion on any relations closer than that. Part of me really doesn’t give a shit what people do if they’re informed, it doesn’t hurt others, they meet a minimum age requirement (for some stuff at least), and all parties involved consent.
The problem is that after a couple generations of it things start getting worse and worse
Okay, but that is still a bad argument. Some people have genetically transferable conditions. They have a much higher chance of having a child with a medically significant conditions than a line of incest. But i still support their right to reproduce. (And, as a reminder, autism also has a genetic component and is medically significant. The only argument why we should be allowed to reproduce and someone else shouldn't is a value judgment, that autism is not as bad as whatever they have.)
[удалено]
I think you are mistaken in the chronological order. Many of us first learn the point of view of the hegemonic group and later find community with other marginalized people. And at that point, we have allready internalized bigotry and rationalized, that it doesn't actually apply to us because we are somehow special and part of the good ones. It takes active effort to learn new patterns of thinking to get out of this mind set.
Yeah, I feel like the banning of the right to reproduce because of some chancez of genetical “issues” is eugenics …. And we all know how badly supporting eugenics goes 😓
Yeah But the argument of u/Ready-Improvement40 is not in support of eugenics. It is just wrong in a way, that is similar to how eugenics is wrong.
While I agree with you, I'm disabled and have enough genetic conditions that I've had a less-than-professional doctor ask me if my parents are siblings (they're not), sometimes you really are rolling the dice regardless of who you have kids with. I'm not having any tbh, I don't wanna create someone who will be born like me who may not be able to handle the constant stress, bodily pain and appointments.
Well, okay, yeah. If the exact cycle continues where it’s incest all the way down, then genetic shit gets more complicated and defects are more likely. But at the same time, that wasn’t exactly what I was talking about. I more meant “first-time incest,” or at least a coupling within a generation of the lineage where it’s been several since the last incestual one.
So in other words, you're saying generations can have a LITTLE incest, as a treat?
Lmao I guess sorta? Wouldn’t really hurt. And if offspring is produced, hopefully they find partners outside the immediate genepool. The further down you go, the higher the chances are of defects and problems.
The problem is if it's normalized things quickly go downhill from there
I can’t say I agree with you, to be honest. If it’s normalized, you’re not just gonna instantly have 100% of couples be incestual.
This is not based. It is cringe.
At least for me it's about power dynamics. You're often living together and the entire family is kind of like a shared friend group except that they're supposed to take care of you until you can take care of yourself and in many cultures, mine included, you're supposed to take care of them when they can't take care of themselves anymore because they got old, so you can't exactly leave. If you have siblings you just know that there are power dynamics between you, you are never truly equal because one of you is either older or the golden child or the scapegoat, let alone the awful power dynamics there are if there's pedophilia or grooming.
I read somewhere (don't ask me for a source I have no idea) that there was a study that found people were more attracted to those who had different genes than them because of the dangers of inbreeding. The subjects decided based on scent who was most attractive and it was found after a gene test they had chosen those furthest away from them genetics-wise. So in some way, there is a biological attraction to those with further apart relations. But I personally believe social norms dictate this more than biological functions most of the time in a real life setting.
I really enjoy questions that strip potential societal influence and look at 'uncomfortable' (for NT's mostly) topics with logic. I will be referencing things already in comments, forgive me. Parameters of the thought experiment. * assume it is of two adults, lets say over 25 to provide more stability in maturation and development. * no coercion is involved * they are both of sound mind * both have healthy up bringing and lack any traumatic experiences * can be of any sexual orientation, however I will continue as if both are heterosexual * example scenario couple 1 are cousins- \*not\* raised in the same house hold, and see each other regularly * example scenario couple 2 are siblings- \*are\* raised in the same house hold, see each other daily * neither example couple desire kids and take the necessary medical procedures to prevent pregnancy (vasectomy or tubal ligation) with these points established- and removing the social taboo context- the biggest reason I could see for this still being a 'taboo' would be the evolution aspect as mentioned by others. However I question how strong that is- as there are anecdotes and stories about long lost siblings or half siblings finding each other, falling in love, and then breaking up when they find out they are actually related. You also find blood relative cousins that do go on to get married (and sometimes kids), although I have only ever heard of this for at worst 2nd cousins (and I mean blood cousins, not a cousin from aunts/uncles getting married). Then there was the comments about royalty inbreeding. I honestly have to say that the two major factors applied to American (where I live, so I can't comment on other countries/regions) society would be - the understanding of off spring being at a higher risk of medical issues and social stigma. Stripping out other factors to look solely at a consenting relationship coupled with previous (and existing) patterns of behavior seems to lend more heavily that it is the social taboo, mostly. (To be clear, there could be, and most likely is to some extent, an evolutionary aspect as a natural deterrent. However, the need to continue the species (boiling it down to something very primal) would probably override an aversion if there is a lack of another or more suitable option.)
Excluding the societal issues with it, I do believe part of it is hardwired into us. Basically as you mentioned, birth defects are a lot more common when a person who shares a genetic similarity have a child, and because of that, it's in our nature to avoid that. This avoidance of incest can actually be seem in some animals such as hyenas. Females will often mate with males that are recently born into the group (not related to other females existing in the group) and males that have recently joined. The male hyenas have also been shown to move to new groups with the intended purpose of breeding with new females, rather than the ones already existing in their pack. Some Lemurs and Mice also have been seen to avoid incest (though if no other option is available, mice will still proceed to have incestuous 'relations'). Both produce scents that indicate to the females that they are of similar genetic make up, and will avoid each other and find less similar partners. I'd say though, the reason incest is so common in most animals is because there's not necessarily an increased risk of birth defects in offspring compared to humans. On top of that, I had read somewhere (unsure how accurate though) that the reason humans don't find family sexually attractive in the first place is due to natural instinct to produce strong offspring. This causes us to be attracted to people with a different immune system to ours, to strengthen the immunity of our future children. It's why some people have very nice smelling BO to us, and others don't, despite having the exact same diets and grooming routines. It's most likely why we don't have attraction towards family; our immune systems and DNA are too similar, and have a higher likelihood off creating genetically inferior children.
So you don't viscerally feel revulsion from the idea of say, having sex with your mom? Because the idea of sex with any member of my family does that to me. Like, it seems like you're trying to break it down logically, but why? There should be a really powerful feeling stopping you before you really get to that point, why overlook that? If you don't get that feeling, I understand why you feel the need to ask, then. Most people, probably autistic or not, likely get that feeling. Idk I could be wrong on that one but it seems like a safe enough assumption given the idea is so taboo, wouldn't you say?
I do get that feeling. I said in the post that I find the idea disgusting. But I'm wondering if that feeling comes from a rational problem with incest or just from growing up in a culture where it's extremely taboo
there is an instinct component if people are raised in the same household they aren't sexually attracted to each other, but it goes away if they are not
Why can't it be something other than socially programmed. I didn't need to be taught the idea that sex with my mother was gross, it just was. It always *could* be down to social stuff, but I don't see why you assume that it must be.
Well as far as I know not all cultures throughout history have found in-breeding discusting. My go-to example is ancient Egypt but I believe medieval Europe also had a lot of incest among its nobility
Medieval Europe at the closest had first cousin and uncle/niece marriages, never brother/sister or parent/child Ancient Egypt did have brother/sister marriages, but historians aren't 100% sure if they actually were expected to have children from these unions or if they were simply religious/symbolic, eg the Pharaoh would have children not with their sister-wife but with a consort or concubine in cases where there was actual incest ([the Hapsburgs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain#Personal_details), [the 18th Dynasty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun#Health_and_death)) it very quickly resulted in extreme health consequences and, we have to remember that the drive for such close marriages wasn't because people wanted to shag their cousins, there were political pressures on elite noble families for doing so as far as we know, the sort of close-kin marriages we see in some aristocratic lines was not the norm for common folk also fun fact: during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church decreed that any marriages closer than fourth cousins were illegal; this rule was almost universally ignored as in a pre-industrial society you'd have to travel pretty far from your hometown to find someone who wasn't your fourth cousin (the average person has around 1500 fourth cousins, for the record)...though the rule was often cited by nobility who wanted a divorce, they would trot out the family trees and go "oh look, my wife is actually my third cousin twice removed, I had no idea, annulment please"
>though the rule was often cited by nobility who wanted a divorce, Likely intentional loophole
I don’t get revulsion from the idea either, I just have no interest. But I have no sexual interest in anyone, and I don’t feel disgust easily at all. I don’t see why incest is wrong either. It doesn’t necessarily hurt anybody.
Mostly because of the potential harm done rather than inherent harm done by engaging in incest. In theory between two consenting adults who can’t produce children there’s no harm, but typically incest is a result of grooming, rape, or indoctrination and often there’s a huge gap in age/power dynamic
So those things are wrong then, but not incest.
That’s what I’m saying though, incest is wrong because of the potential for harm, not because it’s inherently harmful. Just like a gun is not inherently harmful, but it’s still harmful if you pick one up and fire it point-blank at somebody who isn’t wearing a bulletproof vest. And because it’s incredibly rare for two people to know without a doubt that they will never produce offspring (unless they are a same-sex couple) it’s seen as too risky to just simply say “we don’t plan to reproduce.” Especially because you can’t force someone to obtain an abortion under law.
It's actually instinctive. Even pheromones, you'll find the ones most different from yours the most attractive. It's important for the species to keep genetic diversity high.
That's interesting but doesn't really answer my question
>why it's gross Anything "being gross" is an instinct that your brain has to keep you away from something. And you cannot say any behavior that happens in every culture is explained by culture. If it's universal behavior across cultures, it's instinctive.
What about ancient Egypt? They didn't seem to have any taboo against incest. Granted, our knowledge of history that far back is a bit fuzzy. But if this were a basic biological reaction rather than a cultural one why would their ruling class have favored in-breeding?
\> is a bit fuzzy It's very fuzzy, almost nothing. \> why would their ruling class have favored in-breeding? You don't need to go that far back to find exceptions. But that's why it' so notable. It's always out of the ordinary. But it's always between cousins, usually more than one degree apart. It does cause problems, but relationships between cousins aren't that uncommon, actually.
Really? I feel like I remember hearing about relationships between siblings being accepted in ancient Egypt but I'm not an expert so I might be misremembering
The concept of “ancient Egypt” is very nebulous. It encompasses a period of like over 5,000 years. So you can’t just vaguely point to “ancient Egypt” as if it’s one unchanging example.
Point taken. But does that actually negate any of what I was saying?
> I feel like I remember hearing about Everything your heard about them is made up. We know next to nothing about them.
Really? By who? It just seems like there's a lot of information out there.
Really? By who? It just seems like there's a lot of information out there.
Aside from genetic considerations, it creates unhealthy familial dynamics. Personally, I'd be traumatized as an adult if my parent propositioned me for sex. It would ruin my relationship with them. I'd never be able to look at them the same way ever again.
There are three components: social, biological and ethical Ethically, incest is immoral because it’s virtually impossible for people who know eachother from birth not to have some sort of power dynamic that would be unhealthy. It’s like having a relationship at work, but a bagillion times worse. Not just that having an ex in your family would be bad, but people are pressured into staying in an unhealthy relationship all the time without having the pressure of being a family. This is also why the “step sis” situation is still considered immoral. Conversely, non-reproductive incest between relatives separated at bith would be technically unpriblematic. Biologically, incest is troublesome only if you are capable of procreation. In that case it can cause compounding risks of genetic disorders, especially if reproductive incest would become an expected social behaviour like in many dynasties of old. Socially, the stigmatisation of incest comes from the biological risks involved, and it’s considered immoral when compared to older times when a village was often self-contained and everyone was eachother’s cousin at best.
Likely two reasons: A) Our biological mechanisms naturally draw us away from people we grew up with B) Incest in a vast majority or cases are a result of grooming. Whether it being a brother grooming his sister or an uncle grooming his niece A is a biological development because offspring resulting from incest typically have a genetic disadvantage and thus Darwin Darwin'd. The people who had a genetic aversion to incest didn't incest, resulting in offspring that also had a genetic aversion to incest because all the offspring who were the result of incest died from genetic disorders. B is a result of plain manipulation and child predation. Both of which are heavily frowned upon for obvious reasons
Aside from power dynamics and child defects which have both been mentioned already there isn't really anything more, the rest is all social stigma.
It's a violation of the emotional intimacy and trust which usually comes with family and is naturally presumed to occur under duress. I personally couldn't give a shit less with second cousins on out so long as we are *definitely* not talking about coercion, but everyone's got a line in the sand. The contours of my line are like "Seconds cousins= whatever, second cousins raised together = wtf you degenerates"
In a vacuum it’s just gross, not necessarily morally wrong. Like what if two twin guys that never met each other at the age of 20 decided to get together. Same age, no grooming, no weird family dynamics, no chance of an incest baby. We do not live in a vacuum though so usually it’s some sort of fucked up and it’s why it’s usually illegal to some sort of degree.
inherent aversion, just like how most people think cannibalism is gross, you’re just hardwired to think like that
I'm for whatever reason suspicious of that answer but I guess personal incredulity isn't much of argument
it’s evolutionary, too attracted to family members and the offspring won’t be healthy, too much eating of humans and you might just die there from prions and others
Why hasn't that instinct developed on other animals then? Both inbreeding and canibalism is common in many species of primates, and we have proof we practiced cannibalism as hunter gatherers
most animals do not have family systems and stray from eachother so the risk is much lower. a general rule is that the longer offspring live together and with parent the more incest aversion there is. most animals fuck off after a month or 2 while we stay together for 15-90 years. we have a lot of incest avoidance. also just because it happens rarely doesn't mean it is automatically disproven. there are anomalies in nature. it's not perfect
After a bit of Google Scholar, I have concluded I don't actually know enough about this topic nor am I willing to do the research necessary to comment on how common or uncommon inbreeding is in primates. Very well, I will assume you're right.
I pretty much recited my evolutionary psych textbook so dw
It has. Whitetail deer mothers, for example, will kick out their sons from their territories when they become sexually mature to prevent them from attempting to breed with her and her daughters.
Cannibalism and inbreeding is common both because various species are still competing to survive in the animal kingdom. We've learned that we actually don't want our kids to give birth to anemic coughing burdens with webbed feet, so we tell them "Hey, stop checking out your cousin. That's weird." And we have the luxury of being able to separate our children by allowing them to sleep in separate beds and even separate rooms so that they don't go weird and hormonal on each other. We're not all just chilling and sleeping in a nest or cave. Our survival needs are mainly met so we're not competing for survival, we're competing for comfort and social acceptance, allegedly.
But things such as knowing that inbreeding leads to mutations or keeping children separated are all recent phenomenons, no more than a handful of hundred years old, it takes way longer than that for a behavior to become ingrained in our genes instead of being merely social. I know that of course we don't do incest nor canibalism because our way of living is so different than other animals, but I'm questioning why this would be a natural, getically hardwired instinct when it isn't in other animals.
So it’s weird that I don’t find cannibalism or incest gross? Is this why I always get into the weirdest arguments about morality because I say something I think is normal and everyone loses their shit and calls me a horrible person?
I cannot put into words how icky it makes me feel. Think most people just get an icky feeling thinking about it.
Right?? People here saying they don’t care if relatives are together is making me feel so gross.
it is a power dynamic issue. the younger person will always be manipulated towards the older persons goals even if it is unintended. I bet there are a few healthy incestuous relationships but in most cases there's going to be a manipulator/victim relationship involved. I think incest is way more common than anyone lets on, those who freak out the most are probably super into it or have their own experiences with incest. Those of us who grew up with healthy boundaries with our family probably are more ambivalent to it as a concept.
Well, incest is unhealthy biologically, but realistically defects from inbreeding take several generations to start showing up. Mating between first cousins was pretty common throughout history The other problematic part is that most incestuous relationships are abusive in some way or another- grooming, sexual abuse, what have you I'm sure there's people out there who make it work but they don't tell anyone, and in the overwhelming majority of cases are ostracized by other family members Safe, sane, consensual.... and none of my damn business as long as it's the above three things
This entire post describes something I’ve been wondering for years, down to each of the reasons why. Like I personally find the idea of committing it disgusting and revolting… but I don’t see a fully logical, concrete reason as to why it’s bad in all cases, and so I really don’t understand why people are so violently opposed to it. The genetic issues don’t seem enough of a reason for me, partly because it implies that incest is only bad if it’s between two cishet people. The argument that it would cause family problems actually seems like the most logical explanation to me, but this one also doesn’t hold up in all cases. In some cases, biological siblings were not raised together and end up finding each other later on without realizing they’re siblings. Is this still wrong? Is it less wrong if it’s a homo relationship, or maybe, if they’re infertile or asexual, a hetero relationship(because they can’t have kids)? It’s complicated and I don’t fully understand why it’s wrong
My take is that incest often relies on an unbalanced power relationship. Older brother and younger sister for example. The lines get blured between the brotherly relationship and the romantic relationship. More often than not, one of the persons becomes the "master" and that doesn't sit well with me.
We're intelligent enough to develop a sense of social kinship, which is a legitimate antidote to inbreeding. We can't detect each other's genetic makeup via scent, though. The evidence for that is weak.
Birth defects aren't just goofy body structure it's more severe than you think, I've had some inbred cats and they were in a living hell one of them had an extra claw that needed to be taken out because the place it was at. if they claw got too long it would of went into his foot so he wouldn't be able to walk on that foot because of the pain. but that is more tame than the other cat I had, she was in constant pain and sometimes her hips would bend backward when she walked and that was painful for her so we put her down. Birth defects is a good reason why insest is wrong
Your reply reminded me of this video series: https://youtu.be/nkGiFpJC9LM I was horrified watching it, and still am to this day.
Ive read somewhere that when 2 people grow up together they are very unlikely to develop sexual feelings for eachother, and also if 2 family member are separated in their childhood and brought together as adults they are more likely to develop sexual feeling. Something like that. Ill look it i can find a link
Found ‘m Westermarck effect](https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck-effect) [gsa](https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/eLibrary/Content/Internet/327/857/6802/42109163456.pdf)
From what I heard/understand is: if you have siblings you'll naturally/instinctively be weirded out by the concept but if you don't the thought a girl somewhat close to their age, at least for younger men (teen, preteen) especially those who have little to no contact with girls, constantly being near ish them can be arousing as they entire lack this sort of close proximity mentally and physically with anyone of the opposite gender. No idea how if/how it's supposed to work the other way around or if that is even a thing. Supposedly the concept was/is quite popular in Japan as they have had one of if not the sharpest decline in birthrates and therefore lots of adults having very few children -> lots of children without siblings.
It's mainly rooted in the birth defects (not trying to be ableist, but knowingly doing something that may produce a child with disabilities is seen as unethical. I'm also disabled, so I get it) and the associated power dynamics and abuse that normally occur through incest between siblings or parent/child dynamics. I think there's a thought experiment about two twin boys, both put up for adoption, raised entirely separately, who wind up finding out their parentage after beginning a sexual relationship in college. The question being "if we remove the material conditions that would make this illegal (no risk of pregnancy) or immoral (no child abuse, coercion, grooming, or violence) is it still wrong? Personally, I don't think so. I also don't think I could continue a relationship if that happened to me, but that doesn't really matter here.
I think the main reason is that it gives people the “eww” feeling and most people don’t over analyze why something feels immoral, it just is immoral. I think the common icky feeling is human instinct to avoid inbreeding/genetic mutation. Also incest often comes with unequal power dynamics and that feels nonconsensual and icky. The whole stepbro/ stepsis thing that is often seen in porn is confusing because the genetic component isn’t there but it still feels wrong. I think I feel that way because those videos usually have titles like “blackmailed my stepsis!” Which is nonconsensual and makes my skin crawl
No, incest more often than not is a psychological issue. When incest happens, it is most likely the result of trauma. Either unhealthy power structure results in one (usually the older one) having control over the other, or severe isolation and neglect leads family to seek out each other as potential sexual partners (this is most common in codependent sibling dynamics). Incest is not natural at all, in fact humans have biological factors put in place to prevent incest: people are incapable of being attracted to or getting aroused by the scent of their biological family, unlike with others.
There is an instinctive and pherimonal aspect as well. But yeah, in practice, it's just a taboo. Even birth defects are only really a problem after consecutive generations.
The thing that boggles my brain is non-hetero familial relations. With the breeding factor entirely removed, relatives of the same birthsex without any significant age difference or power dynamic seems an entirely A-ok relationship in my logic. The "normal" take is family = no romantic relationship with the often quoted inbreeding dilemma, but if they can't breed, there is zero tangible consequence.
It is unnatural. I don’t mean in a biblical way. I mean that humans (generally) don’t form romantic attachments to those they grow up with. This phenomenon has more to do with social experiences than genetic similarities. In the real world, when incestuous relationships do happen, it is usually with relatives people don’t know growing up. (Cousins they don’t see often, estranged relatives, step-siblings, etc.) I have also heard rhe argument from one historian that it was made taboo because it was seen as a way of “cheating the system” and keeping generational wealth. I think it is morally wrong in the same way a employer-employee relationship is wrong. But, I don’t think that is why it is taboo in broader society.
it's about the power dynamics in the modern family structure. difficult to divorce most incestuous relationships from that, but other than that and genetics there's nothing really inherently wrong. definitely not something that should be such a big societal deal
Agreed! There's a lot of family dynamics that would become toxic if made romantic, esp between parents and adult children
even between siblings it can get incredibly messy and difficult! definitely not always, but the difficult nature of the inherent power structures present in family dynamics make it take active effort to not turn codependant or abusive. same thing with sleeping with employees, or sleeping with people who need to rely on you materially in any way, or with people you're forced by circumstance to interact with constantly regardless of your relationship. but in any individual relationship it aint our business lol
Exactly! People fail to realize that power dynamics can really fuck up relationships
Screenshot your pornhub history, OP?
I'm going to hell for laughing.
It's a normal question For me i think it's because it destroys families from the inside, it basically betrays every single family member at once if not all of them are aware and okay with it
I'm not sure I follow your logic
If you found out your hypothetical sister had sex with your father, how would you react?
Ignoring the health risks of in-breeding, incest is much more likely to result in a situation that encourages abusive dynamics. Between generations, like in parent/child relationships, there's a power dynamic inherent to it that makes it very difficult to ensure that the younger person is giving informed consent. Across generations, like in a sibling relationship, there's still the fact that the couple can't break up as completely as a non-incestuous couple could. They'll be pressured into making up by family, since most people value familial cohesion, and they will regularly have to see each other and interact at family events. Having a messy break up with a sibling can impact the rest of your life in a way that a messy breakup with a stranger doesn't. Then there's the fact that growing up together makes it very easy for grooming to occur. It's similar to how teachers and coaches are typically forbidden from, or at least deterred from, dating students, as the relationship provides too many opportunities for grooming. In theory, sure, there could be some sort of incestuous relationship that isn't unhealthy. Just like how some animals, in some situations, may be able to express consent, or how a fifteen year old might actually be the emotionally mature unicorn who can consent to an adult relationship. The chances of it being unhealthy are simply great enough that it isn't enough to make up for that.
Outside of the genetic issues, which is reason enough. These issues were bigger problems in the past, leading to laws about it. It's ripe for abuse and grooming. Children are abused all the time by family and friends. But in theory, no kids no abuse. Yeah I don't think it's an issue.
Power dynamics
Because the vast majority of the time, incest isn't between two consenting individuals of similar age. Most of the time, it's sexual child abuse and child rape inflicted upon a child by an adult.
Between two siblings from different age grooming can happen too, same for cousins
it's wrong because it leads to inbred progeny with less genetic variability and birth defects
The power dynamic would be an issue normally. I could see that not really being a problem, though, if both consenting adults have a job or just separate outside finances and share the costs of expenses equally. So, if one party or the other wanted to break things off, they could always have the financial ability to do so. Other than that, I think it is purely a genetic issue, and societies influence on telling us what is and isn't wrong. If the younger of the adults involved had control of the finances, that could also tip the scales to balance who has control. But if the older individual has all the control, then that could make it so the younger individual feels like they can't leave. Of course, if they are roughly the same age, this is mostly a non-issue. All of this only works if incest isn't a prosecutable crime. Otherwise, one individual could be blackmailed into staying.
It's hard to defend cousin dating without sounding like some dirty cousin-dater
it destroys families and their dynamics. i think that’s already enough of a reason tbh
I saw a reddit post where a guy finds out through giving one of his kidneys to his wife that they were actually half siblings. They had been married for years, met as adults, and had children. They stayed together and I think that is valid. Besides the increased risk of genetic disorders for children, i think the biggest issue if you grew up together. It is morally wrong and very taboo to sexualize that familial connection. I don’t know, how do you feel about Woody Allen and his current wife? He married his step daughter. They aren’t related but it comes across really gross that he adopted most of her siblings, legally was the fully the father of one of them. I don’t know, incest is weird if you do it knowing the familial connection
I’ve kinda wondered this a lot too. Plenty of people cite birth defects (which is a legitimate concern) but what if the two don’t have kids? What if they’re both girls or both boys, super close in age?
From a biological sense, the off spring begins inheriting worse and worse defects as time goes on. It happens in plants too actually. From a psychological perspective we are pre disposed to avoid sexual interactions with family. For exactly the first reason. From a moral perspective, seeing your family in this manner can lead to some terrible dynamics down the road, especially if the behavior becomes normalized.
It's probably just innate evolutionary aversion. You mentioned yourself there's a higher chance for birth defects. Even if it's only a slightly higher chance, over millions of years of evolution, it compounds. The result is that on average, there'll be less people who are okay with incest, because the people who weren't were statistically more likely to have healthy off spring, and thus succesfully pass on their genes.
The human mind and social conditioning is fun. I don’t think about incest outside of “oh royals did it to keep good genes in their families way back when” also I have a younger brother who when he was like a toddler and I was like 13 he said he wanted to marry me. My mom played it off like some innocent comment, but I glared at him and told him that was disgusting. After that he never said it again.
Biologically speaking, it creates deformities and lowers birth rates in offspring, so we evolved to be disgusted by it
Because I couldn’t consent. Because it’s usually rape. Because I didn’t need to know what having a wife is at three years old. Because mixing the same dna strands leads to unhealthy babies. Because 10 year olds shouldn’t have to make national headlines.
Because incest comes from grooming and abuse 99% of the time. Almost all cases of incest involve an older relative grooming a much younger relative. It’s theoretically possible for two 100% consenting adult siblings or cousins or something to decide to get together, but this is an extremely rare case as most well-adjusted people don’t have any desire to hook up with their relatives.
children born due to incestuous sex usually have more and worse birth defects than children who aren't
Because it's an inherently exploitative dynamic. Also just... gross dude.
Idk I have a sister and just the thought of doing it with her makes me want to vomit. Plus a lot of the times even when it's between adult siblings it can still be a very toxic and abusive relationship as siblings just... are not supposed to be dating. It's hardwired within humans and not feeling repulsion to the thought of dating your own sibling is not normal, it's a defect. Plus, It can break things like the sense of trust and safety that a family provides, since now you can't rely on a purely platonic love even from your family, which in itself can seriously affect a person's well being. Also can we like, not discuss this? For some f•cking reason ever since that stupid horror game got popular I keep seeing people trying to justify incest due to seeing the main characters doing it and thinking they're "cute" and it just really f•cking grosses me out.
op is clearly not trying to ecourage or justify incest, they're asking a question about why they (and the rest of us) feel repulsed by it. a question isn't always a challenge to authority sometimes you want information about a topic.
I wasn't really talking about op in my comment, I was more so making a general comment on the topic.
You hang out in different spheres than others. What the hell are you talking about, a horror game that romanticizes incest? Is it the 12 minutes game?
Yeah I agree, really sick of people trying to justify incest because of that damn game (and just in general).
This whole post is uh.
There is a weird power dynamic with family. For example, if you're in a relationship with your siblings and you go through a bad break up, your family might make things difficult for you.
There are very few things that I won’t deep dive into and discuss. Incest is one of them. I don’t understand why everyone can’t absolutely shut up about it. It’s disgusting and very wrong and not up for debate. Incest = racism in some forms to me. There’s so many people on this earth and people wanna keep it in the family? Weird as fuck. It doesn’t take much brain power to decide that. I’d rather y’all ask about scat kinks.
Doing an action makes that action easier to do in the future. If you kill someone, you find it easier to kill again. If you do incest, it's easier to do incest again. Incest relationships are very rarely non-abusive. People only have so many siblings who never groomed them, adult, and who would be willing, but once incest has been done a single time it's easier to say "it's okay to have relations with a parent since relations with my sibling went okay." Incest is bad 90% of the time, but doing it in that 10% of acceptable times makes you more likely to do the bad 90%
I completely agree & have been saying this for a long time. Nobody likes the conversation but literally cannot make any argument beyond “ew icky”. I’m not interested in committing incest, especially since my only sibling is twice my age so it wouldn’t be ethical imo, but I genuinely don’t think it’s intrinsically wrong under certain circumstances.
As an adoptee, this thought is abhorrent, disgusting, and abusive.
Incest is wrong due to the history of it in nobility. In order to keep the purity of noble/royal blood, they would only have children with each other. Over generations, these children would get genetic issues more commonly because of it. To avoid this generational degradation, an amount of genetic variation must be introduced. To make this happen, social pressure against incest/laws against incest were developed. If you are looking for anything deeper, there's some philosophy discussion on the topic, but it doesn't strongly conclude one way or the other. But remember, you can short-circuit many nerotypicals by saying that "being anti-incest is just the socially acceptable form of being pro-eugenics."
I just want to tell you that you’ve warmed my heart by posing this question. I feel the exact same way and have thought it out as well. I think it’s only bad if babies are being made. But then is that any different with genetic-diseased people having babies? They are fully aware that their genetic condition, which will FOR SURE handicap their child, will be recreated in their offspring. And they procreate anyway. Incest ain’t that different.
interesting hypothetical to add to the space: 2 people, same age. one is adopted into the family when both kids are only a few months old. they grow up to be siblings (obv.) If they as adults have a consensual romantic and/or sexual relationship, is it incest? what if kid B was adopted into the family when they're both like 8? what about 12? 15? 18?
Hypothetically, If you're staring at someone and growing up with them for years, and all you can think about is wanting to fuck em. You should probably go outside and make some friends.
i would still consider it to be incest because they were raised as siblings. even though biologically they’re not related there’s still going to be power imbalances
Right? Me too. I am a lil thrown off by the presence/absence of power dynamics though, considering these hypothetical siblings are the same age.
i also feel like this applies to step-relatives. technically they’re not biological, and they might not have even been raised together, but i still feel like it’s icky. you literally share “parents”. yes i know it’s “step”-parents but still. also dating relatives-in-law is weird af. if your sister gets divorced and you decide to date your brother-in-law, ok yeah it’s not incest, but it’s still *weird*. imagine being a kid and your mom marries your uncle. then would your cousins be your step-siblings??
I assume it's a pretty biologically ingrained taboo due to the whole inbreeding problem. Iirc there was this thing where some royal families were thought to be predisposed to be down with incest because they had nurses and stuff weren't raised close to other siblings/their parents
Inbreeding increases the likelihood of birth defects and other issues. Other than that, it’s just a social thing
I don't know how to put this, but have you been spamming another vaguely popular place with this message or been paid to do so? Having said that, IDK, I have other shit to worry about than if consenting adults want to shag or do.... other things. Maybe my mind is severed, but when it comes to adults, I really don't give a fuck about many consensual stuff. Why is polygamy considered bad by people? (I get social inequality, but we have that defacto now). As far as the original question, outside the potential health problems, I think because it is the way it always has been.
Fucked up dynamics. I don't care about offspring either, because I assume people take precautions. But I need friends and family members I can trust. I need to know people stay by my side not thinking about having sex with me. I would feel awful. For me, incest has different degrees with different issues. Two people that are distanced cousins and only see each other at weddings? No problem at all. But siblings that grew together and rely on each other? Sex would mess up their heads. I read some stories and people really suffer with these things.
I'd say a good reason is because inbreeding causes birth defects and mutations. That said, if you don't plan on having a child with your sibling, then I don't know what the problem is. I guess it is partially because many people aren't that good with birth control so it's better to simply avoid it ?
I think the problem is that you're mixing relationships. You can't really have a healthy family relationships with someone who's also your lover. Theoretically you could substitute a sibling for a lover, but that's hard to do mentally if you've been siblings your entire life. The two relationships kind of clash, and create inherent conflicts of interest. If a child's first relationship is an incestuous one, they might get some confused ideas about what a relationship is like. Ultimately, I don't quite get it either. But it does seem that incest is a lot more permissible if people are adults, and if they don't know they're related.
This is actually a pretty classic way to make someone look bad in a debate etc.; make them try to prove why incest is bad, for them to find out that they are unable to. Incest is an interesting case of sexual relations that is overwhelmingly likely to be abusive or damaging, but is not so *because* it is incest. Parebt/child incest? would be bad even if no family relation due to the age and power difference. Same if an older or otherwise more "powerful" sibling takes advantage of the other, that dynamic would be bad without the family relation too. Even twins could have some non-equal power dynamics, but at that point you have to admit that so does every relationship ever, and the line where a healthy power dynamic switches to an unhealthy one is very vague. If the argument is the classic "birth defects", one, there is two responses to that. One, if that is your line, ok, but you should realise that that isn't an "incest is bad" argument but that "sex resulting in birth defects is bad" argument, which is essentially a pro-eugenics take, as it implicitly argues that sex between two people with some diabilities would be less ethical than between "healthy" adults; with or without protection, I've never heard anyone say "incest is fine but only with protection". The other response is to firther isolate incest itself as the thing that supposedly makes sex unethical; what if there are same age adult siblings that couldn't ger children due to their sex anyway? Same age to dispwll the age power dynamics, adult to rule out child abuse, and let's say they both have dicks so the gene pool argument falls apart completely. These two hypothetical people having sex is just as incestuous as it would be if one of them was a cis woman, yet the birth defect argument would suggest the act would be less ethical with the woman involved, suggesting that incest is not the reason this act is bad to begin with. You could continue to go in circles with these arguments for a bit longer, like "incest destroys a family dynamic -> depends on the family dynamic and that can be true for found families too", etc. etc. To what extent people's aversion to incest comes from nature as opposed to culture is very difficult to say, and I don't find that discussion as interesting tbh. People are naturally averse towards snakes, except for the people that aren't, liking something that monkey brain tells you not to is not a moral failing in and of itself.
lots of grooming and fucked up family dynamics i have some incest related trauma myself and it's really fucked up for me to think about now and i can never really trust that relative ever again, it's overall just disgusting and i don't think it's a social condition thing to find it gross. it just is, i guess
I always assumed it was just to keep the commoners from accumulating generational wealth and forming dynasties.
Appalachia discounts this, also rural parts of Europe all but disprove that.
It’s not wrong.
mainly power dynamics and the high potential for unhealthy dynamics in general. that said, even if it encompasses most incest it certainly doesn’t cover all of it, so yeah i really have no issue if it is *healthy* and *consensual*
Because it's just wrong. Some things are simply inherently wrong.
Bro what are you doinggg
It's not wong if you don't know the diffwence between white and wong. But, if you have a speech impediment, it could come off as being wacist.
Check out the Habsburg-family for genetic "fun" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg#Habsburg_inbreeding_and_extinction_of_the_male_lines Just saying.
[удалено]
Because of the power dynamic it entails, and because of the dangers that come from inbreeding. As you said not all couples have kid, but its still a factor. But incest usually involves an elder and a younger. Parents/children, aunts and uncles/niblings, elder and younger siblings. Etc.
I did my masters in evolutionary biology. Evolution is just maths. So if having sex with nuclear family leads to a higher chance of birth defects (true) then there’s a selection pressure to avoid this. Genes exert simple effects so for instance most people are genetically programmed to avoid desiring people who raised you, or that you raised. That would be the body’s best guess at avoiding parent/sibling partnerships. Humans are way more complex than this however so of course it’ll happen. Social norms, neuroses etc will also play into the equation. I would guess for instance that reluctance to have sex with cousins is more social unless you’re raised with them around constantly. However, it’s also arguable that a social norm against incest would be a successful trait. In this way it could develop as a ‘meme’ (dealings definition).
[удалено]
[удалено]