If birth control is used, is there any moral reason for siblings from abstaining from sex?  When I asked this on a religious forum a few muslims were disgusted with me.

Views: 2000

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

CBS's search feature sucks, but I recall the Amish story on 60 Minutes. While the argument may be called anecdotal, the consistent results speak for themselves amongst isolated populations. And in the case of the Amish, we are really only talking about roughly 20+ generations for the problem to be noticed within a non-scientific community. So how many generations back did the problem really start? Additionally, these aren't even simply siblings but more distant relatives.
I found the thread that I was thinking of where this was discussed before:

Incestuous Progeny (24 April 2010)

So if the real danger posed by siblings mating is the increased chance of common genetic disorders, shouldn't the matings of groups with little genetic diversity (like the Amish and others who were mentioned) also be considered dangerous to a certain degree and likewise repulsive? I'm being rhetorical, but I just wonder why we only find incestuous unions to be disgusting and not the interbreeding of a tiny, isolated population. It just seems like a weird contradiction that nearly all cultures abhor sibling breeding while simultaneously retaining a sense of xenophobia towards breeding with outsiders. (I'm speaking in massively vague generalities.)
The risk of concentrating bad recessive genes is the same as that of contracting usefull recessive genes. In conclusion YES the risk of genetic abnormalities are increased, BUT these genetic abnormalities stand at least equal chances of being usefull vs damaging. Damaging recessive genes are progressively weeded out from the genetic pool when they negatively affect reproductive success. However usefull genetic abnormalities would not be weeded out of the genetic pool because they would increase reproductive succes. Which means YES the risk of negative genetic abnormalities is highly overblown due to religious taboos.
Rationally, the main opposition to siblings (or other close relations) having sex is the increased likelihood of genetic abnormalities in their potential offspring. Even this varies from culture to culture, from little cultural taboo even for siblings to even second cousins or more distant kin being verboten in others.

There does seem to be an innate repulsion to the idea, however. Undoubtedly part of this is due to good evolutionary reasons, perhaps partially due to the undeniable connection between sex and reproduction. Even when birth control or sterility is a factor, it's undeniable that the underlying purpose of sexual activity is for reproduction. The fact that it can also be fun and recreational is a pleasant side effect.
Familiarity, as much as it can be a vehicle for sexual attraction, can be a sexual repellent in a larger dose. Step-siblings or step relatives would be an example of this abhorrence with no genetic basis.

Also, I have seen reports of studies (can't say much of their veracity) that say that innate senses play a role in deciding sexual attraction. I know that there were some women (well in my past) that I found attractive in appearence, but found unattractive due to their scent (not that they smelled bad) and the relationship did not last. Was this a way for me to avoid a poor genitic match? I don't know if that is the case, but it seems to make sense on the surface.

I enjoy my wife's scent and we made a beautiful baby! I'm just going to call it "case closed". ;-)

Familiarity, as much as it can be a vehicle for sexual attraction, can be a sexual repellent in a larger dose.


Familiarity could be the best clue available, even in a pure family. In any case, the whole purpose of sex in living things is to enhance genetic variety, so aversion to inbreeding or mating with the most familiar faces (at least in a typical tribal setting) seems reasonable.

purpose of sex in living things is to enhance genetic variety


That is simply untrue, there is not a single class in biology or anthropology that teaches such nonsense. The outcome of reproduction is a BALANCE between outbreeding and inbreeding, too much of either can be the death of a population.

I found some evidence to support my genetic variety statement. However, it seems that biologists generally say that the purpose(s) of sex aren't crystal clear, yet.


Surprise! This doesn't mean that variety has been shown to not be an important purpose for sex, but it means that I spoke too soon. Thank you T A A.

(Adriana can slap me too, if she likes! I am not worthy!)
Yes it is and no it is not disgusting, to say so is completely ignorant. Their bodies are no more incompatible for having sex than any other two bodies, inbreeding has been a long established practice of royalty. To find it disgusting is to apply an unnecessary stigma to sex with ones relative, if all things are consensual leave it be.
To say it is disgusting is a subjective assessment that you can't claim to be wrong, right, or ignorant. There is no intellectual crime being committed by someone finding the idea of sex with their sibling disgusting.
It's political correctness gone awry. Sex is sex, if you're going to find it disgusting you need to find it disgusting across the board. You would not know two people were related unless they told you, you add the disgusting bit after you find out they are related which you deem to be "disgusting". Sex is simply sex
Feel free to disagree, but you're attributing bad sex to an undesirable partner. Incestuous sex with a desirable partner is not "disgusting" It's simply out dated and frowned upon. I believe the two of you as well as nearly everyone else are simply projecting the opinion they are told to have and have learned to have on the matter.

If you were to see a pornography with two consensual adults who were good looking you would most likely become aroused. Having later found out in the credits that they were related you would then attribute the term "disgusting" to it, which tells you that it is a mental stigma you are applying unnecessarily.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service