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.
ME have incestuous feelings? I don't think so. If you saw me, you'd know my sister wouldn't be interested anyway.
And she shouldn't be. It should go without saying really. Your siblings are there to support, co-exist or even annoy you. Not to build intimate relations with.
But don't we SEEK people to support, co-exist, or annoy? Generally, we call them husbands, wives, or at least significant others. Why couldn't a brother or sister fill that role?
I think the best argument against it is that most people have a trail of terminated sexual relations behind them that they don't want reminders of constantly, which is hardly possible in a family context.
That last is probably the true origin of such taboos. :) Familial ties are complicated enough to deal with already without the extra baggage of unhappy sexual experiences. Though I've read of some cultures ideas of incest that causes me to scratch my head. I have a vague memory of an article about a small group that is known for their promiscuity - even allowing for parent/child & sibling/sibling, but they had a taboo that made me go "huh?". It was something like the mother-in-law of a third cousin or something about as convoluted. Maybe I can trace the tribal group down again but it's been years since I read the article. I think I saw it in the mid-1980s.
Yeah, I see what you are saying but I see my brother as another version of myself. His genetics are so close to mine and I just think a siblings connection is or should be platonic. I can't even imagine how one would first reveal emotional/sexual feelings towards a sibling. 'Normally' we reproduce with the intent that our children aren't going to become 'involved'. Personally, I would be very much against my future childrens' 'relationship' and would probably feel a sense of disappointment in my own choices when bringing them up. I know you can't help who you fall in love with, but surely if you've set out in life with the view that your sibling is your sibling and nothing more, 99.9% of the time it would stay that way. Out of interest though, have you mentioned the idea to your sister? Just to see what her views are on the issue.
I ruled reproduction out from the start. Remember? Let's rule out love as well and just make it sex for sex's sake. They could have a rule amongst themselves to limit themselves to non-coital sexual activities.
I haven't mentioned it to my theistic sister. She's not of a philosophical bent and wouldn't be a good opponent for me. I know how to argue this subject in a platonic way, she probably would not.
I never said anything about the two siblings reproducing. I was talking about me reproducing and how I would feel about those kids then going on to sexual relations. Well in all honesty, I don't see your point whatsoever then, because if it was for love, I would ever-so-slightly understand making exceptions. But just for sexual reasons? No. Go out and find it somewhere else. Is it really worth the repercussions just for sex?
It is kinda a betrayal of trust. You're supposed to be safe from being screwed with within your own family. You're supposed to be able to have a safe, platonic relationship with your brother, probably for most women the only man they will ever be able to trust that way (other than their father). So that's a problem for me. *shrugs*
When it's mutually consensual, it's hard to imagine how the trust issue gets in there. And where is the betrayal of trust in such a situation?
When it's mutually consensual, it's hard to imagine how the trust issue gets in there.
So is there an age of consent? We probably agree that it depends a lot on maturity differences in the partners. "When it's mutually consensual" is easy to say, but not so easy to know.
And in what way does that apply uniquely to sibling incest? One might raise that objection to so-called "normal" relationships.
Who said it applies uniquely? As I said earlier, mentioning that it happens in more than just incestual relationships only highlights its universal risk. Are you saying that the "mutual consent" issue is irrelevant in kids' relationships and only applies to adults?