🔒 Locked

Taboo

Started by Crispy Oct 2, 2004 at 3:22 PM 58 replies 9k views

Original Post

Oct 2, 2004 at 3:22 PM

Just about every constitution defines sex between two genetically related persons as illegal: brother and sister, father and daughter, etc. Let's not discuss homosexuality here - instead, it's a bit unclear to me why exactly this kind of intercourse is deemed severe enough to be punishable by law. Judeans used to do it, ancient Egypt had at least a quarter of its people marrying and reproducing with someone within the same biological family tree (true, mostly because of the political state of the country at the time, and poverty) and it was pretty common in ancient Greece. Have a read if you're further interested. I have been brought up in the belief that incest is bad and I regard it as such, but I am unclear as to why precisely it's been deemed as bad. Punishment for incest can be as bad as up to 5 years of prison time - this isn't something to be taken lightly IMO. Disregarding all moral standpoints and resorting to logic, it should be up to two grown people to be able to willingly consent to sex, even if they are brother and sister. Despite this logic, you'll be tagged for life and civil court can put you away for quite some time. I guess I have two questions, one of which I think I can answer myself:

what does the notion that incest is "evil" stem from and why is this notion so widely spread? As far as I know, this standpoint stems from the Bible and the state of mind represented by Christianity - at least that's what I've been able to deduce based on what I've read. I'm cool with this notion in general, though. However, I'm not sure why this standpoint is so widely spread across the world nowadays. Is it because incest has evolved from being a religious taboo into a really strong social no-no? How come, then? Did medieval Europe set the mark and the spread of industrialism just grasped some of the stronger beliefs and spread them world wide? Or did this notion exist even before the Old Testament? How so, then?
what are the biological/genetic implications of incest over several generations? I know it has adverse effects, but I don't know what these effects are. Can someone elaborate?

Don't post one-liners in this thread.

Maega

Oct 2, 2004 at 3:25 PM

Inbreeding causes severe mental retardation over time. It can also cause birth defects and other very bad things. This is due to the greatly reduced gene pool variation.

Etnu

Oct 2, 2004 at 3:26 PM

Most major religions bar it -- so it's deemed 'bad'.

Plus, the odds of genetic defects increases dramatically when people who are too "genetically similiar" reproduce. That could be a part of it as well.

C-Junkie

Oct 2, 2004 at 3:28 PM

Its illegal because it leads to genetic defects being far more likely to express themselves.

An unrelated person is far less likely to have the same genetic defects in the same places in the genome.

This is one of those moral beliefs that stem from practicality. Like how Jews shouldn't eat pork: because it used to be hard to cook well enough to kill off the worms.

Circumcision: covenant with god? nah. Less likely to get infected this way.

Marriage: moral belief? nah. Avoids conflicts in small communities, as well as wards off the spread of STDs. Better supports children. The first isn't relevant anymore, but the last two are.

This is part of the reason I dislike religions. They all cling to some "moral beliefs" that may or may not still have practicality.

Umbongo

Oct 2, 2004 at 4:55 PM

Quote:
Original post by C-Junkie
Circumcision: covenant with god? nah. Less likely to get infected this way.

Don't want to turn this into a circumcision thread, as we had one a short while back, but that isn't correct. Masturbation prevention is the main reason it's around in the US. 85% of the world are uncut.

Crispy

Oct 2, 2004 at 4:56 PM

Aha. Thanks for the insight. It doesn't explain, though, if religious systems have based their principles regarding these matters on practice or someone's "great idea". For some reason I'm slightly wary about Christianity having been too concerned about genes two thousand years ago. In fact, I don't think genetic defects could have been identified in this respect anyway without a proper medical history (not to mention procedures and technology), especially if this kind of behaviour was a household phenomenon.

Furthermore, while religion bars intercourse with a biological relative (most likely) because of moral issues, law does the same because of genetic (or social) issues. While the first case is an abstraction that can be extended to all forms and reasons, the legitimacy issue should only pop up if the aim of incest is reproduction. Regardless, incest is considered incest and incest is grounds for jail time, even if the two having intercourse were using rubber spacesuits for protection.

Crispy

Oct 2, 2004 at 4:58 PM

Quote:
Original post by Umbongo
Quote:
Original post by C-Junkie
Circumcision: covenant with god? nah. Less likely to get infected this way.

Don't want to turn this into a circumcision thread, as we had one a short while back, but that isn't correct. Masturbation prevention is the main reason it's around in the US. 85% of the world are uncut.

Sorry, but you're wrong. C-Junkie is correct - historically, circumcision was conducted to prevent infection. It actually removes a very unwelcome hive for bacteria from the human body.

LessBread

Oct 2, 2004 at 4:59 PM

I think it's worth pointing out that many cultures have no problems with cousins marrying each other. That is, they have less problem with the child of one sibling marrying the child of another sibling, and even less problem with the children of cousins marrying each other.

Setting biological reasons aside, I think it's also worth pointing out the psychological damage done on the victims of incest.

Nytegard

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:03 PM

Well what C-Junkie is correct. He wasn't talking about today, but back a long time ago in history. Many myths that we read, many religions were used because science hadn't come along enough to explain certain phenomena, so they created an explanation.

Our ancestors saw two groups of people. One who had incest, one who didn't. They saw the group who had incest have severe flaws appearing, and the group which didn't, not have the same flaws appearing. Thus, the gods must be punishing those who have incest, and thus incest is evil. Our laws took certain religious laws and incorporated them.

Relgion is engraved into our culture, like it or not (it's even engraved into atheists and non religious people). There are many laws which have no moral reasoning if coming outside of our cultural vacuum.

Conner McCloud

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:04 PM

Quote:
Original post by Crispy
In fact, I don't think genetic defects could have been identified in this respect anyway without a proper medical history (not to mention procedures and technology), especially if this kind of behaviour was a household phenomenon.

I'll bet it could easily have been identified without thinking about genes and what not. Severe problems can crop up in two or three generations is extreme cases, so we're not talking hundreds of years of history being needed to identify things.

Quote:
Original post by Crispy
Regardless, incest is considered incest and incest is grounds for jail time, even if the two having intercourse were using rubber spacesuits for protection.

Nobody's mentioned it, but rape is a big reason its still illegal. Father/daughter, brother/sister, aunt/nephew...its a big problem. Emotionally, it can be crippling for a child, or even a teenager, even if its not officially statutory rape.

CM

Etnu

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:08 PM

Quote:
Original post by Umbongo
Quote:
Original post by C-Junkie
Circumcision: covenant with god? nah. Less likely to get infected this way.

Don't want to turn this into a circumcision thread, as we had one a short while back,

A discussion or a circumcision?

Luctus

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:12 PM

LessBread:
If I understood correctly, two cousins having intercourse would still generate some mix to the genepool (wheras siblings/parent-child would not)

Also, I believe the OP was talking about incest where both persons were consent with incest, so the argument "psychological damage" doesn't really apply here. One should note though that rape is probably one of the main reasons, part from bilogical issues, why incest is illegal.

Boku San

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:12 PM

Just one quick tangent -- I thought we determined in the circumcision thread that the circumcision for hygenic reasons was in fact a myth created as a front to prevent masturbation...?

Anyway, I stand right around Conner's last post, about the issue of rape. I firmly believe that incest is wrong, except in *distant* cousins. And that's still kinda weird to tell people.

Umbongo

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:22 PM

Quote:
Original post by Crispy
Quote:
Original post by Umbongo
Quote:
Original post by C-Junkie
Circumcision: covenant with god? nah. Less likely to get infected this way.

Don't want to turn this into a circumcision thread, as we had one a short while back, but that isn't correct. Masturbation prevention is the main reason it's around in the US. 85% of the world are uncut.

Sorry, but you're wrong. C-Junkie is correct - historically, circumcision was conducted to prevent infection. It actually removes a very unwelcome hive for bacteria from the human body.

As I read it he was infering that was the practical reason to do it in the modern world.

Umbongo

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:23 PM

Quote:
Original post by Etnu
A discussion or a circumcision?

Whole forum got the snip, didn't you get the email invite?

Conner McCloud

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:25 PM

Quote:
Original post by Luctus
Also, I believe the OP was talking about incest where both persons were consent with incest, so the argument "psychological damage" doesn't really apply here.

Its just like with statutory rape. Maybe the fourteen year old girl really loves the forty year old man, but maybe she is just being tricked into thinking she does. The possible damage is severe enough to warrent making the entire thing illegal, even if some tiny minority is inconvenienced.

CM

C-Junkie

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:27 PM

Quote:
Original post by Umbongo
Quote:
Original post by Crispy
Sorry, but you're wrong. C-Junkie is correct - historically, circumcision was conducted to prevent infection. It actually removes a very unwelcome hive for bacteria from the human body.

As I read it he was infering that was the practical reason to do it in the modern world.

Er... In the modern world we take showers every day and don't have to worry about it...

Luctus

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:36 PM

Quote:
Original post by Conner McCloud
Its just like with statutory rape. Maybe the fourteen year old girl really loves the forty year old man, but maybe she is just being tricked into thinking she does. The possible damage is severe enough to warrent making the entire thing illegal, even if some tiny minority is inconvenienced.

You took the quote out of context, I immediately after stated that rape was probably one of the biggest reasons why it was illegal. Further more, my note was that the OP was talking about incest were both parties agreed to intercourse for the sake of discussion.

And as for your example, that would still be considered pedophilia even if incest were legal.

Conner McCloud

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:44 PM

Quote:
Original post by Luctus
You took the quote out of context, I immediately after stated that rape was probably one of the biggest reasons why it was illegal. Further more, my note was that the OP was talking about incest were both parties agreed to intercourse for the sake of discussion.

That's a useless limitation, and that was my point. As with statutory rape, both parties are generally consenting. Its hard to say "Why shouldn't forty year old men be allowed to have sex with fourteen year old girls, assuming its consentual" because its so difficult to determain what is consentual and what is pseudo-consentual. So people years ago decided to avoid the question all together, and outlaw it under all circumstances. Incest is the same thing. It might not be rape [both parties are consenting], and it might not be statutory rape [brother/sister, for instance], but it can still be damaging, so its still illegal.

CM

Umbongo

Oct 2, 2004 at 5:54 PM

Quote:
Original post by C-Junkie
Quote:
Original post by Umbongo
Quote:
Original post by Crispy
Sorry, but you're wrong. C-Junkie is correct - historically, circumcision was conducted to prevent infection. It actually removes a very unwelcome hive for bacteria from the human body.

As I read it he was infering that was the practical reason to do it in the modern world.
Er... In the modern world we take showers every day and don't have to worry about it...

There are still groups and people that believe that isn't enough.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.