Anyone want to step up and defend consensual incest being legal (but a bad idea)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It should be noted here that while defects are much more common among children of incestous relationships they are still rather unlikely.

This is a cultural issue, rather than a legal one anyone. The best way to prevent is making people feel disgusted at the idea. Which works (mostly).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Incest is taboo not just in Christianity but in most religions and cultures around the world.  That impulsive instinct against incest has very good biological reasons around it.

The content of it is different however, and sometimes quite perverse to western eyes. To Invoke The Argonauts of the Western Pacific the people of Triobriand Islands off the coast of Papua New Guinea (c1915) practised a form of kinship whereby most contact between brother and sister was prohibited, where if the brother saw his sister so much as naked he was supposed to kill himself on the spot (In reality this wasn't always the case, it was the ideal) while on the other hand, the aunts.. I think maternal aunts, but don't quote me on that... of boys were meant to initiate them into sexual activity as if some kind of sexual tutor.

Prohibitions on Incest seem to be universal (even for Indigenous Australians the ultimate insult was to accuse someone of sleeping with their mother) but the exact form of the prohibition - ie. which part of your family you don't under any circumstances have sex with - is quite varied and depends on alot of other, mostly cultural, factors.

Biology here is an inadequate explaination. It takes a too rationalist view of human beings.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes, incest increases the risk of birth defects.....but so does drinking alcohol during pregnancy, and most people advise against that as well.

So does fathering a child on a woman over 30.

That in fact is a very accurate comparison with cousin "incest" (which is perfectly legal in most Western countries, anyways.) - about the same risk level.

Now, father-daughter (or son-mother)... that's a little more difficult.

Prohibitions on Incest seem to be universal (even for Indigenous Australians the ultimate insult was to accuse someone of sleeping with their mother) but the exact form of the prohibition - ie. which part of your family you don't under any circumstances have sex with - is quite varied and depends on alot of other, mostly cultural, factors.

And, as a too-general rule, the more primitive the culture, the wider the taboo. Up to the notion of "clan incest", meaning all members of the same clan are considered descended of the same common ancestor and therefore sexual relationships between them are forbidden.

As a would-be anthropologist I should give out to you about your use of the word "primitive".

But yeah what you are essentially getting at is correct (though I must say the Incest Taboo is not something I'm particularly strong on.) and shows that biological-rationalist explanations of it are incorrect. Damn Utiltarianism and its distortion of everything.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

@ Lewis:

Hey! I can condemn things I don't like If I want!!!1111

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Incest is taboo not just in Christianity but in most religions and cultures around the world.  That impulsive instinct against incest has very good biological reasons around it.

The content of it is different however, and sometimes quite perverse to western eyes. To Invoke The Argonauts of the Western Pacific the people of Triobriand Islands off the coast of Papua New Guinea (c1915) practised a form of kinship whereby most contact between brother and sister was prohibited, where if the brother saw his sister so much as naked he was supposed to kill himself on the spot (In reality this wasn't always the case, it was the ideal) while on the other hand, the aunts.. I think maternal aunts, but don't quote me on that... of boys were meant to initiate them into sexual activity as if some kind of sexual tutor.

Prohibitions on Incest seem to be universal (even for Indigenous Australians the ultimate insult was to accuse someone of sleeping with their mother) but the exact form of the prohibition - ie. which part of your family you don't under any circumstances have sex with - is quite varied and depends on alot of other, mostly cultural, factors.

Biology here is an inadequate explaination. It takes a too rationalist view of human beings.

How does it take a rationalist view? I think it's irrationalism taken to the extreme, as is any form of "evolutionary psychology".


Either way, cousin/cousin is not incest and there should be absolutely no rules on it, and I don't know how anyone can justify it.

Closer of kin it's trickier, but I still think it should be legal, though there could be reproductive issues.

Oh you and I agree. I probably should have written rationalist in inverted commas, I was merely attacking the common sense in popular circles but intellectually discredited idea that taboos relate to rational, intellectual impulses. Incest is seen as bad due to corrupting the gene pool, etc {Though in example I gave there, the Islands aren't even aware that sex causes reproduction}. That Idea and I hate Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology too.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Incest is taboo not just in Christianity but in most religions and cultures around the world.  That impulsive instinct against incest has very good biological reasons around it.

That's true of incest in the immediate family, though not for cousins. Cousin marriages have historically been quite common, and is still legal in most countries. Historically it comes from people not moving around much in the olden days, so people had limited mates to select from, and cousins tended to be close. Genetic risks are actually minimal provided that it isn't cousins only for multiple generations.

As for closer family, the repulsion to it tends to be at an instinctual level. This is the case in most other animals as well. It's probably an evolutionarily driven behavior.

*Facepalm* Did you read what I posted below that?