• 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.

Moral Disgust

Don't come the raw prawn, mate. You can't compare a homosexual relationship between consenting adults with any of that. That's stumbling into nambla territory.

Why is "consent" and "adult" so difficult for some people to grasp?

I'm not in any way justifying the act. I'm just saying that the attraction doesn't need justification any more than any other sexual orientation does. The only known effective treatment for destructive/criminal sexual attraction is drugs that reduce the sex drive in general. I suppose we have to do that in these cases, since it's a harmful situation. However, blaming someone for oddities in their own sex drive is ludicrous. Should we also hold them accountable for their own actions (NOT for their attractions, but their actions)? Well, yes.

But going back to the O.P., just about anything is rationally justifiable to the person that wants to commit the act... as I've noted before. We can even accept those justifications as true without condoning it's practice. Pedophiles can intellectualize every bit as well as drug addicts to give themselves permission to do such things. Actually, they tend to know better deep down, but rationalizations can bring about the "wrong" conclusions as much as they do the "right" ones.
 
Last edited:
Don't come the raw prawn, mate. You can't compare a homosexual relationship between consenting adults with any of that. That's stumbling into nambla territory.

Why is "consent" and "adult" so difficult for some people to grasp?

So you agree with the argument that was made?

That if person A finds something incomprehensible then Person A is correct to conclude people who do that must be mentally ill?

Are weak arguments OK if the topics are controversial?
 
Sigh. Is there nothing that can be hidden behind the cloak of skepticism? Murder, cannibalism?

Yes there are - things that hurt other people or violate their rights against their will.

That would include murder. It would include cannibalism, if the cannibalism included murder.

If an adult brother and sister want to have sex, I have no issue with it. Why on Earth would I? They haven't hurt one another, and haven't hurt anybody else. I honestly can't think of any reason why I should be the slightest concerned.

Now if you want to say that what they did was wrong, that's your right. But again... why would you? What possible reason can you have to hold that view? Is it just that you find it icky? I find eating steak so icky that the attempt can make me vomit, but I'm not about to go around telling other people they're wrong to do it.
 
Yes, but what if we were to have those reasons under control, as in the situation actually described? Are there reasons outside of potential birth defects? If so, please explain.
In this case, there is very little possibility of reproduction, which is the main problem with incest. The situation remains private, there is mutual consent - who exactly is harmed here?


Ivor would like very much to do away with the possibility of pregnancy in this hypothetical and leave only "it's icky" as one's reason for disliking incest. And the quoted posts above tend to agree with him that genetics are the main reason for the incest taboo.

Unfortunately, there are other reasons why incest causes actual harm.

Incest is harmful to the psyche of the individual. The family is designed as a safe place for the ego. Out in the world, a growing child may be under a barrage of sexual demands. A 13 year-old girl, for example, may suddenly find herself the object of attention of 50 year-old men. How she negotiates this passage into adulthood is at least partially dependent on her having a safe haven to return to when things get too difficult. The family, with its utter lack of sexual demands, allows a child to retreat to safety,

If a family places sexual expectations on each other, the cocoon of safety disappears. Now, in the very silly hypothetical, the brother and sister are adults and some may think this exempts them from the above rationale. It does not. All family must always observe the incest taboo in order for all children - those existing and those yet born - to be raised safely. Perhaps the siblings in the OP have a 15 year-old sister. Will they be able to return to the household for Thanksgiving without her world being affected a little? Perhaps the siblings one day have children of their own (by different partners). Will their experiences change how they raise the children?

A second strong rational reason for the incest taboo is sociological. Successful human society depends on social interaction. The incest taboo forces families to interact and not retreat into isolation.

So, there's lots to talk about before "it's icky." Moral disgust may simply be hiding real social and psychological reasons that are as important to human development as genetic diversity.
 
Whatever two consenting adults of any gender do to each other is their business.

Bringing animals and children into this scenario is not by any means normal.

Once again my opinion.
OP quite specifically was talking about consenting adults. Several people already pointed it out. You still said it was "despicable". Make up your mind.
 
If a family places sexual expectations on each other, the cocoon of safety disappears. Now, in the very silly hypothetical, the brother and sister are adults and some may think this exempts them from the above rationale. It does not. All family must always observe the incest taboo in order for all children - those existing and those yet born - to be raised safely. Perhaps the siblings in the OP have a 15 year-old sister. Will they be able to return to the household for Thanksgiving without her world being affected a little? Perhaps the siblings one day have children of their own (by different partners). Will their experiences change how they raise the children?
That's actually the best argument against OP's hypothetical I heard so far.
 
OP quite specifically was talking about consenting adults. Several people already pointed it out. You still said it was "despicable". Make up your mind.

Well, the OP never stated the age of the brother or sister.

The OP also said nothing about sex with animals.

Why is there such reticence to understand the difference between baby, child, teenager and adult?

Go figure.
 
Ivor would like very much to do away with the possibility of pregnancy in this hypothetical and leave only "it's icky" as one's reason for disliking incest.
Just as you want to introduce harm into a scenario that has none, so that you can justify a ban on incest.

I see two threads that could be explored on this topic; you are discussing whether it is justified to keep incest illegal as a practical matter in the real world. And yes, in the real world there are some good reasons to do so - the genetic issue is one, the fact that families often have power relationships and situations where for instance a father could raise a daughter with the intent of influencing her to be available to him on reaching the age of consent. For these reasons, on balance such a prohibition very likely does more good than harm. No argument.

But that misses the point of the OP, or at least what I took to be the point of the OP. Is incest inherently wrong? Is incest wrong even in a situation where those involved are willing partners without coercion or particular risk of genetic issues or whatever?

I see no reason to think that it is.
 
No, he's not.

Well he certainly was, in the OP, at the time I said he was.

If he were, he would treat the discussion with intellectual honesty.

I don't see a lot of honesty in this thread, so far.

There would be discourse, instead of JAQuing off. There would be dialectic, instead of goalpost moving. There would be arguments, instead of green-eggs-and-hamming.

There is discourse, even if you handwave away queations you don't want to hear and call them JAQing off. There is dialectic (or at least an attempt at), can you tell me where the goalposts were and where you think they have been moved to? There are certainly arguments (look! we're having one!), and I don't see any g-e-a-h-ing, though I recall you using the expression recently in another "let's pile on [x] in the name of moral disgust". Will any thread by Ivor now carry the baggage of previous threads?

Ivor was not this coy when he claimed that you would have to be mentally ill to get a tattoo and his disgust of overweight people is well documented.

I've not encountered his thoughts on either, nor have you provided links (please don't, none of the above has anything to do with this topic).

In fact, his disgust of anyone who isn't, essentially, ItE, is well documented.

I have no idea what you mean by 'ItE'. Do you expect me to? Do you expect me to take your word that it's "well documented", whatever it is? Please don't document it, the topic isn't "Let's be morally disgusted by Ivor". For the record, I have in the past found Ivor's disgust at, shall we say 'non-vanilla' sexual practises to be a fertile source of amusement.

All of which stances that in themselves or in how they were argued clearly did not convey any lack of emotional investment, nor any fertile source of critical thinking.

I understand english isn't your first language, though I generally find your posts a joy to read and easy to understand. I really don't see what you're driving at here, though it appears to be a justification for ignoring the OP in favour of grinding some moral axe.

Lionking had good reason to suspect that this is where the thread is going, because frankly, Ivor has form. It is beyond me why some posters find they need to enable that. He certainly gets no real benefit from that enabling, particularly not in the long run.

Lionking has form, too. I don't like either of them, personally, but in this thread one of them (as someone else has also noted) is making an ass of themself.

You'll not find me 'enabling' anything, and I am a little disappointed you should stoop so low. All I did was point out one poster's deceit and their agenda, which was demonstrably "antithetical to this forum".
 
Ivor would like very much to do away with the possibility of pregnancy in this hypothetical and leave only "it's icky" as one's reason for disliking incest. And the quoted posts above tend to agree with him that genetics are the main reason for the incest taboo.

Unfortunately, there are other reasons why incest causes actual harm.

Incest is harmful to the psyche of the individual. The family is designed as a safe place for the ego. Out in the world, a growing child may be under a barrage of sexual demands. A 13 year-old girl, for example, may suddenly find herself the object of attention of 50 year-old men. How she negotiates this passage into adulthood is at least partially dependent on her having a safe haven to return to when things get too difficult. The family, with its utter lack of sexual demands, allows a child to retreat to safety,

If a family places sexual expectations on each other, the cocoon of safety disappears. Now, in the very silly hypothetical, the brother and sister are adults and some may think this exempts them from the above rationale. It does not. All family must always observe the incest taboo in order for all children - those existing and those yet born - to be raised safely. Perhaps the siblings in the OP have a 15 year-old sister. Will they be able to return to the household for Thanksgiving without her world being affected a little? Perhaps the siblings one day have children of their own (by different partners). Will their experiences change how they raise the children?

A second strong rational reason for the incest taboo is sociological. Successful human society depends on social interaction. The incest taboo forces families to interact and not retreat into isolation.

So, there's lots to talk about before "it's icky." Moral disgust may simply be hiding real social and psychological reasons that are as important to human development as genetic diversity.

Can you show that this isn't a bit ethnocentric... specific to modern western cultural values? Most social psychology/sociology is, BTW.
 
Last edited:
If you drink milk you probably don't have a problem with animals being sexually exploited by humans, at least as long as the human isn't enjoying it.

Have you ever milked a cow? Those teats are a long way from its vagina.

Or are you talking about when the cow is bred so it will freshen? But that would apply to everything from breeding dogs to horses.

Edited to add: I just saw that this has been covered later in the thread. The greater question of whether it's okay to kill animals for our use overshadows any quibble about whether artificially inseminating them is wrong, in my opinion. If it's okay to eat them, it's surely okay to make them reproduce, and that would be a total derail.

Back to the topic at hand: I think that disgust is not a good guide toward what should be allowed, because otherwise gay rights would be set back quite a few decades.
 
Last edited:
Ivor would like very much to do away with the possibility of pregnancy in this hypothetical and leave only "it's icky" as one's reason for disliking incest. And the quoted posts above tend to agree with him that genetics are the main reason for the incest taboo.

Unfortunately, there are other reasons why incest causes actual harm.

Incest is harmful to the psyche of the individual. The family is designed as a safe place for the ego. Out in the world, a growing child may be under a barrage of sexual demands. A 13 year-old girl, for example, may suddenly find herself the object of attention of 50 year-old men. How she negotiates this passage into adulthood is at least partially dependent on her having a safe haven to return to when things get too difficult. The family, with its utter lack of sexual demands, allows a child to retreat to safety,

If a family places sexual expectations on each other, the cocoon of safety disappears. Now, in the very silly hypothetical, the brother and sister are adults and some may think this exempts them from the above rationale. It does not. All family must always observe the incest taboo in order for all children - those existing and those yet born - to be raised safely. Perhaps the siblings in the OP have a 15 year-old sister. Will they be able to return to the household for Thanksgiving without her world being affected a little? Perhaps the siblings one day have children of their own (by different partners). Will their experiences change how they raise the children?

A second strong rational reason for the incest taboo is sociological. Successful human society depends on social interaction. The incest taboo forces families to interact and not retreat into isolation.

So, there's lots to talk about before "it's icky." Moral disgust may simply be hiding real social and psychological reasons that are as important to human development as genetic diversity.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t188h6334n81313g

Long-term differences in young adults' sexual behavior and adjustment following preadolescent sibling and nonsibling peer childhood sexual experiences were investigated. Questionnaire data were collected from 526 undergraduate college students. Of this sample, 25 (5%) reported having had only a sibling sexual encounter, 61 (12%) reported having had both a sibling and a nonsibling childhood sexual experience, 236 (45%) reported having had only a nonsibling sexual experience, and 204 (39%) reported no sexual experience with another child prior to age 13. No differences were found between the sibling, nonsibling, and no-experience groups on a variety of adult sexual behavior and sexual adjustment measures, including incidence of premarital intercourse, age at first intercourse, number of intercourse partners, sexual satisfaction, sexual arousal, and sexual dysfunctions. It was concluded that adult sexual adjustment is not negatively or positively influenced by typical early childhood sexual experiences among similar-aged siblings.

The above doesn't cover all possible harm from such behaviour, but I'd have expected at least some of those outcomes to be different between groups if sibling incest was as harmful as our strong negative emotional reactions to it leads us to believe.
 
Have you ever milked a cow? Those teats are a long way from its vagina.

Or are you talking about when the cow is bred so it will freshen? But that would apply to everything from breeding dogs to horses.

Right. Animals can't give informed consent yet we have no problem exploiting their sexual and other biological functions for our non-essential benefit* or pleasure. The only exceptions are if we use them for sexual pleasure or make them suffer, though it seems to me most people are less bothered by animals suffering than they are by the idea of a person getting sexual pleasure from one.





*Milk is a pretty odd food to consume in the first place. It was only our ancestors consuming it which resulted in the gene which enables us to digest lactose being left on after weaning. Most people in the world cannot drink milk without getting ill.
 
If you looking at me to agree with sex between adults and children or animals, then you have a long wait ahead of you.
I'm not expecting you to agree with anything, but you could at least acknowledge the topic of discussion, which clearly isn't "morally unambiguous reprehensible activities".

For instance, when you say "sex between adults and children", I wonder up to what point you think a child is a child. Is it the same for every person?
When can someone actually (not legally) give informed consent? Can all legal adults give informed consent? Do you think it's impossible by definition for minors to sexually abuse adults?
The same thing goes for sex with animals.

You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the notion that these issues are not all black and white.

My opinion is that there is no rational basis for these acts.
And again, the rational basis for fondling a Badger's intimate bits was never the issue. The issue is whether there is a rational basis for finding this reprehensible or not.
 
Last edited:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t188h6334n81313g



The above doesn't cover all possible harm from such behaviour, but I'd have expected at least some of those outcomes to be different between groups if sibling incest was as harmful as our strong negative emotional reactions to it leads us to believe.

You base your whole argument from one study done in 1989? Any more comprehensive and up to date surveys of the subject available?
 
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.

But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man *********** a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her ****, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.

How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob.

...
 
I'm not expecting you to agree with anything, but you could at least acknowledge the topic of discussion, which clearly isn't "morally unambiguous reprehensible activities".

The topic of discussion is to find a moral justification for why one would not find these acts disgusting.

Give me one moral justification for why one should not find these acts disgusting.

The acts that I am referring to are adult and children or human and animal sex.

For instance, when you say "sex between adults and children", I wonder up to what point you think a child is a child. Is it the same for every person?
When can someone actually (not legally) give informed consent? Can all legal adults give informed consent? Do you think it's impossible by definition for minors to sexually abuse adults?

For the sake of argument, lets just stick to the legal definitions of childhood and adulthood.

It's not the same for everyone or everyone would be the same.

Yes, I have witnessed the sexual manipulation of adults by children.

The same thing goes for sex with animals.

Don't apply the same criteria to animals that you do to humans.


You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the notion that these issues are not all black and white.

When I am stating my feelings and opinions about the subject, I tend to state the extremes first and work from there.

And again, the rational basis for fondling a Badger's intimate bits was never the issue. The issue is whether there is a rational basis for finding this reprehensible or not.

I fail to see how you would find a moral justification that says its not reprehensible.
 
You base your whole argument from one study done in 1989? Any more comprehensive and up to date surveys of the subject available?

One of the problems with many studies is they sample from people already in treatment for mental health problems. It therefore makes it hard if not impossible to determine causality. I also avoid papers which use emotive terms such as 'survivor of...'. I am still looking and will post links to any more recent studies that have been performed on non-clinical populations.
 
The topic of discussion is to find a moral justification for why one would not find these acts disgusting.

That's not the topic of the discussion I am having so one of us has it backwards. The topic of discussion is whether finding something disgusting is enough to provide a moral justification for condemning/outlawing it.

Noone is asking you or anyone else to provide a moral justification for finding something disgusting. That would be like finding a moral justification for finding something delicious.
 

Back
Top Bottom