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.
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?
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.
The only issue seems to be a species risk but the original question eliminated that as an issue. There seems to be no logical reason against it. Even the genetic factor isn't that critical - consanguinity only increases the risk of perpetuating existing genetic abnormalities and does not introduce new ones. In fact normal relations do the same but are only better at masking the expression - and even that isn't reliable. Given that any species starts with a small gene pool and a limited number of mates to say evolution would select against it would be absurd. A species might develop the trait later on and it might have an advantage that will cause it to be selected for, but that particular one can only thrive if the population has expanded to the point where it no longer eliminates all possible mates. And if such develops it would still have to appear when the population is small enough for it to be distributed to any significant degree to begin with. That trait would require an effective and stable kin-recognition mechanism as well as the aversion to such sexual relations. It would also have to have a mechanism to narrow the distribution of germ cells to non-relatives. Given that multiple aquatic species just depend on the males (and sometimes the females) just blasting their sperm into the waters (and often with multiple males doing it together) without regard to ancestry (and they don't care about it either). They've been doing it for millennia without complication. The genetic issue is a problem but not a show stopper by any means nor is there any definite evidence that it's a normal and automatic evolutionary selection to guard against it. For humans it's a social issue more than an instinctive one. The fact that we even consider the matter at all or even act on the interest is telling. Outside of concerns about social complications there seems to be nothing substantially restricting our conduct other than law and tradition.
Supposedly, we're all related to one African female. In that case, we started out incestuously. Topic for another thread, perhaps.
As a teenager I had an on-off sexual relationship with my first cousin.
Apparently first cousins are considered borderline not-incestuous; some places forbid it as incest and some do not even though they have the concept of incest.
Have you discussed these feelings with your brother/sister then?
The incestuous feelings
ME have incestuous feelings? I don't think so. If you saw me, you'd know my sister wouldn't be interested anyway.