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: 18201

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've read your posts Unseen, I don't see anything trollish, but...the fact that you continue to eliminate the genetic issue in your conjecture already makes your point invalid; you cannot eliminate the genetic issue when it comes to sex.  The only possibility of eliminating a genetic issue is if the siblings were homosexuals; this would be the only sure fire way to eliminate the possibility to producing offspring.

As for your limitation to noncoital sex, I am absolutely certain that if a brother and sister are engaged in any sexual activity, eventually coitus will happen.  You cannot just automatically eliminate it for the sake of argument because it's inconvenient for your argument.  This only demonstrates that you are seeking an approval of your conjecture and not a critical response, and this is evidenced by those who have responded to your post and your follow up with "but what if" reply.

Hormones inducing the feelings of lust, desire, and any form of sexual passion will eventually lead to coitus.  Sexual desire in human beings is an extremely strong emotional and biological urge that is difficult to resist.  I don't know a single man who will not have the urge, desire, or intent to bed a woman after he has engaged in a form sexual intimacy - absent of coitus. 

So, if a brother and sister choose to engage in sexual intimacy with each other, they have to consider the inherent risk of procreation and the impact that creates on a number of levels - whether they are engaged in intimate, loving relationship, or if it's just "sport fucking."

When I talk about the risk of pregnancy eliminated, it can be totally eliminated in two ways: if one party or both voluntarily have themselves rendered infertile surgically or if one or the other or both are already barren. This totally eliminates the genetic risk.

As long as it's a "what if," I can structure it any way I like, even if you don't like it. 

I don't know a single man who will not have the urge, desire, or intent to bed a woman after he has engaged in a form sexual intimacy - absent of coitus

Yes you do. Take me for example. If I've been satisfied by my partner, orally, manually, or anally, what need have I for coitus? Not only that, like most men, once satisfied one of those "other" ways, I'll have neither the desire not, for a while, much ability to engage in coital sex.

As long as it's a "what if," I can structure it any way I like, even if you don't like it.

True.  You can, but then you would need to account for all "what if" situation in you initial argument.  At least, that's how I would think you would need to structure your argument, otherwise you would run into some of the problems people are raising on here.  I guess what I am saying is that the argument appears too general in this way.  It also seems to not account for the fact that we are dealing with human beings, and human behavior is not known being consistently perfect or entirely careful.

Oh, and it's not that I don't like it.  I just find the argument a little weak is all.  You, however, can (and will - I know) carry on any way you like.

Yes you do. Take me for example. If I've been satisfied by my partner, orally, manually, or anally, what need have I for coitus? Not only that, like most men, once satisfied one of those "other" ways, I'll have neither the desire not, for a while, much ability to engage in coital sex.

True, but only in quite possibly in the first few encounters.  When it comes to sex, there always seems to be this idea or need of "raising the bar" so to speak to keep things satisfying - which normally ends with coitus.  Have I known men who can be satisfied with noncoital sex?  No.  My point being that once a man "breaks the seal" in a noncoital sexual encounter with a woman, there is always the desire to take it to the next level of coitus.  Add to this the fact that women deal with sex in an entirely different way, physically and emotionally because of their biological and psychological differences, and I think the reality is that coitus will eventually happen - especially if the intimacy level is high.

Are we to forbid all behavior that becomes risky if people sometimes don't obey the rules? I don't think so, or we wouldn't be able to do much of anything.

Going from anal sex to coitus is, most men would argue, lowering the bar, not raising it. Going on to anal sex is usually once vaginal sex has become "been there, done that."

Since I wouldn't want to risk making a baby, and knowing condoms can fail, I'll just stay away from vaginal sex. I find that an orgasm is an orgasm is an orgasm.

Are we to forbid all behavior that becomes risky if people sometimes don't obey the rules? I don't think so, or we wouldn't be able to do much of anything.

I was going to say something similar in my last post but in a different context (even though I chose to leave it out in the end).  I agree that the moment you place limitations on something, those limitations are bound to be broken, and therein lies my point.

If you are speaking in general terms about the general population of brothers and sisters getting busy, you cannot place a specific limitation regarding one of the dangers of their behavior.  Certainly, if you are speaking about a specific couple with the specific biological trait of infertility, then yes, we are go for launch in the argument.  But the general population is not infertile, and so I don't see how that specific limitation can fit into a general argument considering all the variables of risk involved.  I can certainly stretch my mind to get there, but I am trying to think realistically of the complicated situation you propose in your argument.

Everything has a risk involved, and the level of risk depends on the level of behavior which can yield unfavorable results.  It does not matter how careful one is or two people are regarding his or her behavior, there is always a level of risk involved.  Taking that risk depends on a person's willingness to deal with the consequences of such behavior, especially if the negative consequences out weigh the positive.

The "if it feels good, do it" mentality does not always yield favorable results.  In fact, in the long term, it - in my opinion - produces the opposite effect.

This all said, this is a good conversation.  I find no need to dismiss it.  You should raise your argument to a fundamentalist Christian just for shits and giggles, and see what they say.  If they argue against such a practice, point out to them that Abraham was getting busy with his sister, Sarah, (even though it was his half-sister) and God didn't seem to mind.

But it's like anything else. We can't forbid people from operating heavy machinery under the influence of Benedryl; all we can do is remind them of the risks. They are free individuals and managing the risks is up to them. 

Clearly, you are searching for a reason to discourage brother/sister incest with a vigor you probably wouldn't apply to operating heavy machinery while taking Benedryl. Both involve risks not only to themselves but potentially to others. 

At the same time, can you say that if the topic was "Operating heavy machinery under the influence of Benedryl, what's wrong with it" you'd be writing such lengthy justifications of your position?

"Let me ask you this Unseen, would we thrive as a species if we all slept with our siblings? If the answer is no then that's all the explanation you really need."

Couldn't you use this argument to say homosexuality is wrong?  

Genetic problems.  Thy don't arise with greater frequency from any of your stated couplings except close relatives.

These are the things that need to be explored. Given an incestuous relationship's potential for questionable origins, it warrants some scrutiny.

It's easy to understand why parent/child incest is wrong, given the imbalance of power and the genetic problems of inbreeding. Those problems are just about inherent in p/c incest but not in b/s,  and especially not in s/s or b/b incest.

Yet, rivalry can exist in normal relations as well, most of them having a dominant member in the relationship. I remember a female sociologist friend telling me that a marriage really can't be a 50/50 thing. Someone needs to break ties.

I'm not buying that sibling rivalry is always or even mostly as bloodthirsty as you seem to assume. To be sure, in my own case, there was and still is sibling rivalry between me and my brother, but my sister and I aren't rivals in any sense of the word and are quite close (no, not in a sexual way).

RSS

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 1 Comment

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service