Is incest always condemnable?

[ConspiRaider]

The biological "taboo" came first, long before we ever established social taboos against incest.

It's in a member of a species best interest to avoid mating with someone whose DNA is very very similar. After all, it is that DNA that will split (unzip of 23 chromosomes from each) and then rejoin to get the joyous 46 chromosomes again. Incest is a bypass to the error trapping that occurs, whereby upon rejoining, a defective gene is supposed to be eliminated in favor of the good one. Therefore, Nature builds in aversions to mating with, for example, siblings. Incest undercuts Global Rule 1: Survival.

The jokes about the inbreeding and the hillbillies in places such as West Virginia - there's a root issue. It is said in West Virginia, the only women who don't have AIDS are those who can run faster than their brothers.

Pheremones play a role in sexual attraction and aversion. We got 'em. Of course we won't admit that so much because many of us don't even like to admit that we're animals. But - those secondary sex characteristics - especially with scent and pheremones - are hard at work, 24/7.

It's why I am so much against this catalog browsing that women can now do, sperm shopping. That is monstrous, to me. Complete bypass of all the rules of sexual attraction and aversion that Nature has taken hundreds of millions of years to perfect. Our arrogance in the face of Nature. One day - we'll pay big time for that arrogance.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Also, and I've experienced this, people you've known since childhood, that you've been raised around, possibly that you attended primary school with, can trigger the incest taboo (that ew, ew ew thing). However, there is no biological reason for this (you aren't going to weaken the gene pool), nor are there any social mores to blame.

Ah, but there is a biological reason. It's just a little bit subtle. If we accept that natural selection is going to weed out sexual desires for kin, the question must be posed How are we to know who is kin? Mostly, particularly in pre-state societies, anybody you saw all the time in early childhood was a fairly close relative. Natural selection would probably hop on that connection as the simplest way to identify kin. Of course, it leads to false positives, just as brothers and sisters separated at birth and reunited lead to false negatives.

 

[OXEL]

One day - we'll pay big time for that arrogance.

In what way?

 

[ConspiRaider]

In what way?

Geez Oxel, where do you want to start, on us paying for our arrogance in the face of Nature?

Did you know that women are now told to not eat bigger fish during pregnancy, because of the danger of passing on methylmercury to the baby in development? Did you know that certain Inuit women were instructed to NOT breastfeed their babies because their breast milk was toxic? Did you know that human male sperm count has been dropping? Did you know there has been a dramatic increase in autism?

You know about human-caused global warming? All of the "wonderful" things we are doing to hasten its progression? Did you know that when we pave everything - streets, parking lots, malls and so forth in our cities - that it causes waste and harmful bacteria to be washed down to the beaches, causing them to be closed as environmental hazards? Doheny Beach - mentioned so happily in surf songs by the Beach Boys - is closed many days of the year because of high bacterial counts in the surf.

Do you know about the destruction of wetlands - that which Nature designed as huge natural filters and "brakes" to devastating events such as hurricanes? Did you know we're killing coral (that's an animal, not rock) because of excess carbonic acid in ocean water? Did you know that we just "succeeded" in extincting the baiji - a freshwater dolphin in the Yangtze River in China - and that the baiji had been on the planet for 20 million years?

I'd call this arrogance in the face of Nature. What would you call it?

 

[OXEL]

Geez Oxel, where do you want to start, on us paying for our arrogance in the face of Nature?

Did you know that women are now told to not eat bigger fish during pregnancy, because of the danger of passing on methylmercury to the baby in development? Did you know that certain Inuit women were instructed to NOT breastfeed their babies because their breast milk was toxic? Did you know that human male sperm count has been dropping? Did you know there has been a dramatic increase in autism?

You know about human-caused global warming? All of the "wonderful" things we are doing to hasten its progression? Did you know that when we pave everything - streets, parking lots, malls and so forth in our cities - that it causes waste and harmful bacteria to be washed down to the beaches, causing them to be closed as environmental hazards? Doheny Beach - mentioned so happily in surf songs by the Beach Boys - is closed many days of the year because of high bacterial counts in the surf.

Do you know about the destruction of wetlands - that which Nature designed as huge natural filters and "brakes" to devastating events such as hurricanes? Did you know we're killing coral (that's an animal, not rock) because of excess carbonic acid in ocean water? Did you know that we just "succeeded" in extincting the baiji - a freshwater dolphin in the Yangtze River in China - and that the baiji had been on the planet for 20 million years?

I'd call this arrogance in the face of Nature. What would you call it?

Irresponsible.

But you were talking about women doing "sperm shopping" which led you to your statement about our arrogance. I think that women doing this are a tiny minority and will remain in the future. I don't think that's a big problem and I don't see a connection with incest. The problems stated above are not really caused by sexual hedonism.

(Edit: I consider your questions to be rhetoric of sorts, but to do you right: I did knew a few of the things you stated above. But I think that's not the right thread to go deeper into such issues. And if we were to discuss them seriously, I would ask you for some sources. And I would like to remind you that there are people that seriously reject the idea of global warming being caused by humans. )

 

[ConspiRaider]

Irresponsible.

But you were talking about women doing "sperm shopping" which led you to your statement about our arrogance. I think that women doing this are a tiny minority and will remain in the future. I don't think that's a big problem and I don't see a connection with incest. The problems stated above are not really caused by sexual hedonism.

(Edit: I consider your questions to be rhetoric of sorts, but to do you right: I did knew a few of the things you stated above. But I think that's not the right thread to go deeper into such issues. And if we were to discuss them seriously, I would ask you for some sources. And I would like to remind you that there are people that seriously reject the idea of global warming being caused by humans. )

I do not provide sources, and won't, Oxel. You may do your own research howsoever you wish. Science is a decades-old enthusiasm of mine, stretching back to high school, college and so forth. Can't source that. Oh all right, here's a source, I'm looking at it on my bookshelf: On The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin. That's a 460-pager.

The very few who reject anthropogenic global warming - check their check stubs. You may find the check originating from certain 10-billion-dollar-a-quarter-in-profit oil companies. Don't even get me started on the hoodwinking about AGW that is financed by ExxonMobil.

Sperm shopping and incest. Yep. Absolutely a connection. Because it is possible that a woman - unknowingly - can be impregnated by her half-brother. Example:

CBS's 60 Minutes had a brief overview on this, but of course all it takes is a little noodling on your own, and the answers reveal themselves. Investigation found that women kept picking this one guy in the sperm catalog. Because of his height, eye color, hair color, weight and education. Like a pizza, they ordered that guy to be one half of their baby. Well, he's fathered over 150 babies. No one knows the exact number. All of those babies are now half-brothers and half-sisters to the child that the sperm shopper bore.

We know how things go. We know how, for example in this country, the media loves to pound in the insane idea that males aren't really all that necessary in the bringing up of baby anymore. Sitcoms do it. TV dramas do it. Talk shows. Celebrities, such as Jodie Foster, promote it by sperm shopping - and deliberately cutting out any direct male influence in a child's upbringing. What I'm saying is that it is becoming socially acceptable that if a woman wants to have a child but does not want to deal with the "messiness" of a relationship with the man - it's cool. Who needs the guy? Just take his sperm.

That is arrogance. That is us humans - once again - skimming technological know-how and then charging ahead with it. I just read something interesting several weeks ago dealing with the issue of women reaching puberty at earlier and earlier ages. A study of this phenomenon seems to indicate that one of the causes is LACK OF A MAN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. That a father's presence, via hormonal or pheremonal releases - acts as a brake upon a girl's accelerated development towards puberty. We already know that pheremonal communication is a reality. Just ask two women who become roommates. After a time, they'll adjust their menstrual cycles so that they occur at about the same time. How do they do that? They don't discuss and decide upon it. Some other form of communication is at work.

Newton's Third Law of Motion, again, is apropos, in the shortcutting of Nature and skimming of technology that we humans are doing, have been doing. We'll pay for that. We already are.

 

[supercorgi]

Now, of course, when the vast majority of sexual acts are not undertaken for reproductive purposes, and with ready availability of reliable birth control, the revulsion is just an anachronism. Certainly, anyone who is repulsed by thoughts of boinking family should refrain from so doing. There is no reason, however, to think any less of those who, for whatever reason, do want some hot bro-on-sis action.

Edited by Katana: 

Edited to remove comment better suited for members-only section.

As scary as it is, I've got to agree with the Marquis.The incest taboo, although it exists in many cultures, is very much societal. As some ponted out, Egyptian royalty often married their sisters. Apart from that, I have to admit that my first cousin is hot, hot, hot.

 

[supercorgi]

I just read something interesting several weeks ago dealing with the issue of women reaching puberty at earlier and earlier ages. A study of this phenomenon seems to indicate that one of the causes is LACK OF A MAN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. That a father's presence, via hormonal or pheremonal releases - acts as a brake upon a girl's accelerated development towards puberty.

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.

 

[OXEL]

I do not provide sources, and won't, Oxel. You may do your own research howsoever you wish. Science is a decades-old enthusiasm of mine, stretching back to high school, college and so forth. Can't source that. Oh all right, here's a source, I'm looking at it on my bookshelf: On The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin. That's a 460-pager.

You don't have to provide sources. But of course, backing up your claims makes you more convincing. And even from some kind of economic point of view it makes sense, because it's more effective to share sources than for all people search for themselves.

The very few who reject anthropogenic global warming - check their check stubs. You may find the check originating from certain 10-billion-dollar-a-quarter-in-profit oil companies. Don't even get me started on the hoodwinking about AGW that is financed by ExxonMobil.

You have a point here. But saying that all sane people that do reject this idea are being paid by those companies would be a rediculous conspiracy theory. Most of them are "normal" poeple like you and me and were simply more impressed by the arguments given by the companies.

Sperm shopping and incest. Yep. Absolutely a connection. Because it is possible that a woman - unknowingly - can be impregnated by her half-brother. Example:

CBS's 60 Minutes had a brief overview on this, but of course all it takes is a little noodling on your own, and the answers reveal themselves. Investigation found that women kept picking this one guy in the sperm catalog. Because of his height, eye color, hair color, weight and education. Like a pizza, they ordered that guy to be one half of their baby. Well, he's fathered over 150 babies. No one knows the exact number. All of those babies are now half-brothers and half-sisters to the child that the sperm shopper bore.

This is correct. I wasn't thinking about that, my bad.

We know how things go. We know how, for example in this country, the media loves to pound in the insane idea that males aren't really all that necessary in the bringing up of baby anymore. Sitcoms do it. TV dramas do it. Talk shows. Celebrities, such as Jodie Foster, promote it by sperm shopping - and deliberately cutting out any direct male influence in a child's upbringing. What I'm saying is that it is becoming socially acceptable that if a woman wants to have a child but does not want to deal with the "messiness" of a relationship with the man - it's cool. Who needs the guy? Just take his sperm.

Well, we live in different countries and moreover, I don't watch TV. However, I don't see any sort of media campaign like that over here. Sure, such behaviour is more common nowadays. But nevertheless it's still a minority that does this.

Besides, on the long run, maybe men are even going to be more important than women. You can clone a woman and a man out of a man very easily. But not the other way.

That is arrogance. That is us humans - once again - skimming technological know-how and then charging ahead with it. I just read something interesting several weeks ago dealing with the issue of women reaching puberty at earlier and earlier ages. A study of this phenomenon seems to indicate that one of the causes is LACK OF A MAN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. That a father's presence, via hormonal or pheremonal releases - acts as a brake upon a girl's accelerated development towards puberty. We already know that pheremonal communication is a reality. Just ask two women who become roommates. After a time, they'll adjust their menstrual cycles so that they occur at about the same time. How do they do that? They don't discuss and decide upon it. Some other form of communication is at work.

Newton's Third Law of Motion, again, is apropos, in the shortcutting of Nature and skimming of technology that we humans are doing, have been doing. We'll pay for that. We already are.

I don't regard women reaching puberty at earlier ages than before to be a problem. It's good to watch out for problems, but you shouldn't overreact.

Another problem with your argumentation is that you accuse technology in a general way. But technology itself is never bad nor good. It's just a possibility. It's always up to people and how they use it. It may even rescue us because using it together the right way, we might correct the climate changes and the like. And consider this, technology is a foundation of our society nowadays. I am sure you know as well that a severe drawback would cause our society to collapse bringing millions of deaths and unimaginable agony. A very powerfull EMP at one of the more crowded continents would completely suffice.

 

[Amapola]

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.

That's interesting. In sheep and goats, weight has at least some impact on when the doe or ewe is likely to conceive for the first time. If they are on a poor diet and scrawny they are unlikely to conceive at 6 or 7 months of age; but if fed a good diet and if they are a nice, healthy strapping weight (per breed) you have a very high success rate of conception at 6 to 7 months.

 

[OXEL]

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.

That's the way I know it too.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.

Took awhile, I read so much, sift, sift, (sip cognac), sift, (drink cognac), sift, sift, (quaff cognac), sift, sift (inhale cognac)...

Absent fathers may be another cause. American researchers have found that biological fathers send out chemical signals that inhibit their daughters' sexual maturity. Girls whose fathers had left home started their periods earlier.

This is still, of course, undergoing different angles of investigation and things are not completely locked down. But clearly something is going on.

Here's the full article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=473584&in_page_id=1879

 

[ConspiRaider]

Another problem with your argumentation is that you accuse technology in a general way. But technology itself is never bad nor good. It's just a possibility. It's always up to people and how they use it. It may even rescue us because using it together the right way, we might correct the climate changes and the like. And consider this, technology is a foundation of our society nowadays. I am sure you know as well that a severe drawback would cause our society to collapse bringing millions of deaths and unimaginable agony. A very powerfull EMP at one of the more crowded continents would completely suffice.

Hi Oxel -

Technology as used by a particular animal - us - is always at the very least a double-edged sword. Yes it can be great - yes it can be horrific. 'twas technology that brought us antibiotics. 'twas technology that brought us the atomic bomb. Extremes, but you also get everything in between.

We come up with this great thing called refrigeration. Wow! Keep things cold, inhibit bacteriological growth, increase food supply and so forth. Oh no! The freon gas used in the refrigeration gas does what? Rises through the troposphere, into the stratosphere? And what? Destroys ozone? You mean that stuff that helps block excess UV radiation from the Sun?

We come up with antibiotics. But Nature is counterpunching, by producing bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

We figure out how to produce heat to turn steam turbines to produce electricity so that millions can live all over the United States. Oh no. It's coal. When we mine it, methane gas escapes into the atmosphere. Oh no no. When we burn it, mercury that was bound in the coal is now released into the atmosphere. It rains down into the oceans. It becomes methylmercury, and marches right back up the food chain to us. Oh no no no. Soot from burning coal in North America (which provides 50% of our electricity) is deposited on the North polar ice cap. Increasing its absorption of sunlight (instead of reflection) and speeding the melting of the polar ice cap.

I hope you've seen the 1956 film, Forbidden Planet. It was the ultimate lesson in the arrogance of an intelligent species - and how that arrogance can so completely backfire. There's always something that can get you. Such as the "Monsters from the Id".

 

[Big Les]

Conspiraider, I'm not sure how familiar you are with UK papers, but the Daily Mail is prized solely for its absorbency. They routinely report stories with minimal or even zero factual content. One step up from National Enquirer.

If you want to present a credible cite you'll need to track back to whichever US institution they're referring to (Amory is mentioned later but the father/pheremone thing isn't clear).

 

[blobru]

I remember reading an article a long time ago that explained the taboo against incest from several different perspectives.

The most interesting to me was the psychological. As a child grows, the growing ego needs a safe haven. The child needs a space of solid predictability and unconditional acceptence from which to go out into the world and explore. A teenager may test her sexuality by flirting but then, when the situation becomes to intense, retreat to the home where she is free to regress to more childlike behavior.

Taking this as true, the possibility of incest disrupts the need for a stable, loving home. If sexual demands and pressures occur at home, the ego has no shelter.

Now, some may argue that this is why incest with children should be outlawed but not with consenting adults. I offer two responses: First, if incest between consenting adults is tolerated, it trickles down to how children are treated. Can a father honestly treat his 17 year and 11 month daughter as a child while knowing that in 1 month she is becomes a sexually available adult?

Second, the need to have the home be a safe haven does not magically disappear when a person reaches legal majority. For psychological reasons, having the comfort of home may be important throughout a persons teens and twenties. And what forty year-old hasn't regressed just a little when walking in his parent's door?

An excellent summary of the case for 'safe haven', LL, thanks. To me at least, that's the most persuasive argument in favor of the incest taboo, more so even than the risk of genetic deficiency. And together with the other point I posted earlier, the argument from evolutionary group fitness (interbreeding promotes social cohesion), I think give a rational basis to opposing incest, some explanation why it strikes us as 'icky'.

To Inanna's original question, however: in spite of having good reasons to oppose incest, they are not moral absolutes. The case she describes is obviously special -- sort of a nightmarish 'blue lagoon' scenario -- and the kids in isolation could hardly be expected to have acted differently. So, besides not believing in sin anyway, Inanna, I don't think your friends / acquaintances 'sinned' or have anything to feel guilty about.

 

[The Atheist]

Apart from that, I have to admit that my first cousin is hot, hot, hot.

Move to NZ, that's perfectly legit here.

 

[Big Les]

Here too. However, my cousins are unbefugly.

 

[Tailgater]

The thing that I find somewhat odd about this is that there are other pairings that are known to be that bad that are not societally shunned for genetic reasons. Such as two people with Achondroplasia the most common form of dwarfism. If both parents contribute their Achondropastic gene then the child with have a lethal condition homozygous achondroplasia.

So why do we make jokes about people hooking up at family reunions and not a little people conventions?

Look up dwarf jokes and I'm sure you will find plenty.

 

[Tailgater]

Is this actually true? I've often heard that genetic defects can be found in European royals...

Yes. I took a religious history class in college and touched on this subject a little. Royal families would inbreed for power reasons (It was 20 years ago, so sorry if that's not correct). If you follow the artist portraits of the kings and queens of the times when long lines of families inbred, they start looking like the banjo player from Deliverance.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I remember reading an article a long time ago that explained the taboo against incest from several different perspectives.

The most interesting to me was the psychological. As a child grows, the growing ego needs a safe haven. The child needs a space of solid predictability and unconditional acceptence from which to go out into the world and explore. A teenager may test her sexuality by flirting but then, when the situation becomes to intense, retreat to the home where she is free to regress to more childlike behavior.

Taking this as true, the possibility of incest disrupts the need for a stable, loving home. If sexual demands and pressures occur at home, the ego has no shelter.

Now, some may argue that this is why incest with children should be outlawed but not with consenting adults. I offer two responses: First, if incest between consenting adults is tolerated, it trickles down to how children are treated. Can a father honestly treat his 17 year and 11 month daughter as a child while knowing that in 1 month she is becomes a sexually available adult?

That happens all the time now with adoptive/step parents. So how common are relationships that are legal because of no blood relation then?

Second, the need to have the home be a safe haven does not magically disappear when a person reaches legal majority. For psychological reasons, having the comfort of home may be important throughout a persons teens and twenties. And what forty year-old hasn't regressed just a little when walking in his parent's door?

These are reasons why it is likely to be an un healthy relationship, but a great many unhealthy relationships are not criminal.