• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is incest always condemnable?

Inanna

Scholar
I
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
80
Dear friends
I know that most people in all the ages have always found incest very,very condemnable.But is it condemnable even when it is a result of sheer helplessness?For example,I know an incident..a brother & sister lost their parents at an early age.None of the relatives came to help them,none took their responsibility.The brother ,who is a few years older to the sister,had to take care of himself & had all the responsibilities of bringing up his little sister.Both remained in the same house for years,with no one(neighbour or relative) else turning up to stay in the night even.As a result,they became involved with one another in the way which the society does not permit.After completing his education the brother got a good job.After he got financial stability,may be,they felt a bit more secure & the sister gave birth to his brother's child.No marriage ever took place.They are living peacefully now,at least it seems so.Now,do we have any right to condemn this incident?If any of their relatives took care of the brother & sister when they lost both their parents,their relation might not have taken the turn which we call incest.
Nature did perform her role in bringing the brother & sister together which may also happen in some other families also where there are borthers & sisters but can not happen,may be,due to parental supervision.
This incident had a deep impact on my mind & I ask my friends over here to give their opinion on the incident & also to throw some light on the fact if the brother & sister in question are gulity.Did they commit a sin?According to me,sheer helplessness & the sad situation is to be blamed,if anything or anyone is to be blamed at all.Plz discuss with me.
Regards to all.
 
Well Marquis,what a brief but meaningful opinion you have given.Thank you.
 
Last edited:
I would not condemn a couple in this situation, their circumstances have put them together and it would be understandable that they may have grown to love and trust one another.

As the saying goes, "You can't help who you fall in love with" and as long as they are not hurting anyone else, then what are they guilty of?

However, in saying that, it would be wise for people in this situation, to seek as much information as possible before thinking of having children in a relationship such as this.

I believe that there may be a possiblity of children born from blood relations having defects and/or health issues.

It would be unfair on the child if this were to happen. There is a story here of a German brother/sister who had four children together.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254943,00.html
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Well, I think we should start with Is it ever condemnable? and work from there.
Click to expand...
I think the discussion should start even earlier and first make clear who this "we" is and what it means to say that this "we" "condemns" something.

You may feel I'm joking, but I'm not. In ancient Egyptian times, for example, incest was apparently the norm among the pharoah family.
 
This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion about how something routed in some reason, namely the desire to reduce (or avoid increasing) heritable diseases within the population, became a cultural taboo.

IMHO, of course. ;)
 
well i think its gross, but as long as its not abusive and doesnt hurt anyone else its ok with me.
 
nails3jesus0 said:
well i think its gross, but as long as its not abusive and doesnt hurt anyone else its ok with me.
Click to expand...


But the question is: WHY is it gross?

What, specifically, makes it gross to you?

Mind you, I share your reaction.
 
Katana said:
This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion about how something routed in some reason, namely the desire to reduce (or avoid increasing) heritable diseases within the population, became a cultural taboo.
Click to expand...

Is this actually true? I've often heard that genetic defects can be found in European royals... :boxedin:
 
wooooody64 said:
I believe that there may be a possiblity of children born from blood relations having defects and/or health issues.
Click to expand...

That is true but similar risks exist for women over 40 - should we outlaw them from having children too?

And the health risks to a child only work as an argument against male/female incest. Quite how it justifies male/male or female/female being illegal is beyond me.

Footnote: I assume female/female incest is illegal, but am not 100% sure. Britain in particular had some differences between the laws for male and female homosexuality, so not sure if those spilled over to incest laws too.
 
DanishDynamite said:
I think the discussion should start even earlier and first make clear who this "we" is and what it means to say that this "we" "condemns" something.

You may feel I'm joking, but I'm not. In ancient Egyptian times, for example, incest was apparently the norm among the pharoah family.
Click to expand...

The romans too, many of the Emperors had their half-sisters or even full blood sisters and wives and concubines. Even in Europe the Nobles lines often intermarried to the point where it occured (though more often it was cousins than siblings)

Katana said:
This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion about how something routed in some reason, namely the desire to reduce (or avoid increasing) heritable diseases within the population, became a cultural taboo.

IMHO, of course. ;)
Click to expand...

Of course the statiscial probablity of this occuring is about the same as it happening with women in their late thirties, early fourties having kids, and there yet this isn't seen as being wrong....
 
PhantomWolf said:
The romans too, many of the Emperors had their half-sisters or even full blood sisters and wives and concubines. Even in Europe the Nobles lines often intermarried to the point where it occured (though more often it was cousins than siblings)



Of course the statiscial probablity of this occuring is about the same as it happening with women in their late thirties, early fourties having kids, and there yet this isn't seen as being wrong....
Click to expand...


Admittedly, "heritable" is passed from parent to child, so this is not incorrect. However, the diseases passed through sibs mating can be passed to the children's children while the heritable diseases associated with late child-bearing cannot.
 
Katana said:
But the question is: WHY is it gross?

What, specifically, makes it gross to you?

Mind you, I share your reaction.
Click to expand...


i have no idea. i am leaning twards there being some biological aspect to it because its so widespread and an advantage for our species. it might be 100% culture. I cant be certain without evidence...
 
PhantomWolf said:
The romans too, many of the Emperors had their half-sisters or even full blood sisters and wives and concubines. Even in Europe the Nobles lines often intermarried to the point where it occured (though more often it was cousins than siblings)
Click to expand...

At what point did it become taboo? Anyone know?
 
tkingdoll said:
Footnote: I assume female/female incest is illegal, but am not 100% sure. Britain in particular had some differences between the laws for male and female homosexuality, so not sure if those spilled over to incest laws too.
Click to expand...

You know I have always advocated that anyone protesting gay rights should also protest incest rights, but gay incest rights... that's a little over the top don't you think. ;)

(and yes that is tongue in cheek :p)
 
I would think as well as genetic soundness interfamilial marriage tends to cement a group; intrafamilial would tend to divide it (family vs family).

Also, it's probably healthiest for kids to have 'safe haven', a home where sibling or parent-child relationships aren't ever to be sexualized.
 
Last edited:
tkingdoll said:
That is true but similar risks exist for women over 40 - should we outlaw them from having children too?
Click to expand...
Another problem with the heritable disease/disorder argument as a moral stand against incest is that damned science. When, in the probably not too distant future, we can jack with genes enough to severely limit if not eliminate such anomalies, where will the objection come from? If we are to take a moral stance against it (and I certainly don't think we should), it will have to be on some basis besides disease, for that is a house built on quicksand.

As for the origins of the revulsion, I think it's probably pretty straightforward. The risk of disease/disorder made the offspring of such unions statistically less fit. Genes which predisposed one to not being sexually aroused by close family would have done quite well.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brandine: Now Cletus, why did ya haf to park next to my parents?
Cletus: Now, Now, Hun, they're my parents too...

Homer: Wait a minute… are you two brother and sister?
Brandine: We's all kindsa thangs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom