I'm fairly sure most (all) of us feel parent/child incest is wrong, and for fairly obvious reasons. 

However, if a brother and sister are very careful about pregnancy prevention or, better, one or both of them is unable to conceive, what would be wrong with it?

BTW, I'm NOT trying to decide whether to do it with my sister (LOL). This is just a question that came to mind while in a discussion with another person.

Tags: incest

Views: 16915

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've heard claims that we are evo-psych "hard wired" to not want to have sex with people we grew up with.

Not sure I believe it.

There is no evidence to support such a conclusion that I have seen beyond anecdote from casual observation. The patterns of marriage practices I've learned about during my comparative anthropology studies would tend to discredit that.  

My anthropology courses have taught me the opposite conclusion. Citings to real studies would be cool (for both of us).

Whether specific behavior among animals is "natural" or not is also a meaningful baseline, even if we humans are supposedly superior in our ways because we have higher cognitive abilities. I say "meaningful" in the sense that animal baseline behavior can help explain where much of our ingrained, hard to intellectualize/discuss "I don't know why but I just feel it should be thus" prejudices. The power of reason and behavioral pre-thought are very, very recent outcomes of our evolution.

I was in an independent study course. Probably would create differences without the lecture. And my materials were from the 60s mostly I think. :(

Being a poor student sucked. But I do recall some animal studies where they found that several species avoid consanguinity - of course your average male dog will fuck anything that moves - or doesn't! And bonobos (sp?) are pretty promiscuous but I don't know what their limits are. 

So many species with different instincts. 

I think I weasel worded that well enough to indicate I wasn't sure I believed it either.

It's something I read in dead-tree format 20 years ago; I'd never be able to find it even if I hadn't probably thrown out the periodical it was in.

I don't think that explains the revulsion we might feel at an incestuous relationship. If we were ignorant of the genetic implications, would it still be taboo? If so, why?

I think it would be.

Selection pressure favors healthy reproductive behavior. Even without knowing about the genetics, incest (particularly between siblings) produces fewer offspring, and the offspring produced has a higher infant mortality rate, is less fertile, and more prone to genetic disorders (especially of the immune system). Over several generations a lack of genetic diversity makes a breeding population more vulnerable to disease, environmental change, and mutation. The Vadoma "ostrich people" of Zimbabwe are one modern-day example: it is strictly against custom to marry outside of the tribe.

Selection pressure also favors beneficial social behavior. Consider the social implications of incestuous relationships in a primitive society consisting of a hundred individuals organized into family units. The established hierarchy of mother, father, sister, and brother breaks down when you have a sister-mother, father-grandfather, uncle-brother-father, or you're an aunt to yourself.

Most feelings of revulsion are associated with biologically unhealthy behaviours. This is the reason we find the thought of eating maggoty rotten meat so disgusting. So too with the tendency to recoil at the thought of incest with a close family member.

Okay, but you're not arguing the point I posed which was what's wrong with it if it's done in a manner that avoids making babies? What about those of us not living in a small tribe and possessing some knowledge of how babies are made and of genetics as well?

And if one is going to argue that any sex which doesn't make babies is wrong, shouldn't masturbation be bad, then? I can tell you right now that that idea is a nonstarter.

I don't know Strega...people these days find a man or woman who cheats on their loving spouse as revulsion.  But this doesn't stop people from doing it all the freakin time.  

Ones drive for sex and love/attention is so strong that I'm sure it's brought together brothers and sisters throughout history although not as common.  Your point about it having a natural revulsion could be due to the fact that maybe the societies noticed when it does happen, the offspring are affected in some way by it?  

Ya grose with your brother and it sister dude come on...

Vice is nice, but incest is best.  Incest is a family affair.

"The family that plays together stays together."

As a teenager I had an on-off sexual relationship with my first cousin. It was pure animal lust. Now, I must be mentally deranged and morally bankrupt right? I see nothing wrong those who are genetically close fooling about as long as it doesn't lead to pregnancy or hurt anyone else. 


Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin



  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service