Should incest (between consenting adults) REALLY be illegal?

[Durzan]

To spark activity in the forum, I come (heh heh) to ask this philosophical question: Should incest between two or more consenting adults be legal?

I say yes. Why? Because most other instances and concerns that overlap with and render it objectionable (power dynamic, age difference, consent, child abuse, etc), besides the deformity factor of potential offspring from an incestual relationship, is or can be already addressed by other laws that are already on the books.

Now, should incest be encouraged from a legal or social standpoint? Hell no! But, should legal consenting adults be limited from doing what they please, so long as they are aware and take proper precautions? Probably not. The only case that actually still holds water in today's modern age is the increased likelihood of birth and genetic defects that results from incestuous relationships, but even then this factor only holds a certain amount of weight.

But... there are evolutionary advantages to inbreeding that come into play alongside the disadvantages... so much so that some scientists have suggested that a relationship between third-cousins could actually prove to be more beneficial than marrying someone you aren't related to, especially since by that point, the risk of genetic deformity is practically insignificant compared to when you marry a random unrelated person.

So, what say you, and why?

 

[Dansak]

I think it depends on the power dynamic. As you say there are laws out there that cover sexual abuse but that does not necessarily cover it. Older relatives will naturally hold sway and be able to influence the mind set of the younger relatives. So long as there is no unfair influence then I'd have no issue, especially between siblings. I don't see the harm.

Genetics is a different matter, I don't think that children born of incest is a particularly good idea!

 

[Thorn_]

I have no problem with it in fiction. By real world standards, there is a power dynamic that borders on sexual abuse that is almost impossible to resolve. It's difficult to argue on most cases that it's not directly harmful to society or the target of affection. I understand the appeal. I also understand that even if illegal, it doesn't really prevent people from doing it anyway if they are consenting adults. All it really does is allow sexual abusers to be more punishable legally. I don't think that's a problem.

Genetically, there's a reason why divine marriage is no longer a popular dynamic. Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich contracted hemophilla and it actually crippled the Russian Empire because they were desperate to save his life and brought in Rasputin where it all spiraled from there. King Tut didn't so much as wear a hat as something to cover up the deformed skull underneath. King George III literally peed the color blue. Cleopatra was most likely actually extremely obese like the rest of her family and had a bird like nose according to documentation from her reign. When Charles II of Spain died, the autopsy was quoted as saying "His body did not contain a drop of blood" and he had one testicle. Black. As well as rotted internal organs.

I'm fine with the fantasy of it, the actual impact and product it creates should absolutely remain in the past. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure most adults will simply do what they want regardless of the law anyway, so it only really punishes those who target underage family members or others they clearly have a power over.

 

[gene.sis]

Should incest between two or more consenting adults be legal?

Yes. Everyone should be allowed to do everything they want as long as they don't restrict the right of others and don't harm anyone.
Power dynamics might be a problem but such things happen in other relationships as well.

The only case that actually still holds water in today's modern age is the increased likelihood of birth and genetic defects that results from incestuous relationships, but even then this factor only holds a certain amount of weight.

Same could be applied to "incompatible" couples or persons with known genetic diseases.
Neither of them should be deprived of their right of decision.

But... there are evolutionary advantages to inbreeding that come into play alongside the disadvantages... so much so that some scientists have suggested that a relationship between third-cousins could actually prove to be more beneficial than marrying someone you aren't related to, especially since by that point, the risk of genetic deformity is practically insignificant compared to when you marry a random unrelated person.

Both inbreeding and outbreeding can have disadvantages.
If it isn't done regularly (generation by generation,) it might even not be so problematic.

I also understand that even if illegal, it doesn't really prevent people from doing it anyway if they are consenting adults. All it really does is allow sexual abusers to be more punishable legally. I don't think that's a problem.

It allows punishing people even if there isn't any sexual abuse.
It also allows public shaming and forces incestuous couples to live in secretiveness which even worsens cases of actual sexual abuse.
I see that as a problem.

 

[merkros]

This scene from House MD always comes to mind when i think about this subject.

 

[porneia]

Everyone should be allowed to do everything they want as long as they don't restrict the right of others and don't harm anyone.

Very interesting. A few questions about your statement, which is quite common this day and age, if I may . . .

1) Is your statement an universal axiom that everyone must obey?
2) If so, by what objective standard did you receive this law?
3) Even if we grant your exceptions (can't restrict the rights of others & does no harm) who defines what those mean?
4) Does having sex with consenting children count?
5) Does damaging oneself mentally, let alone physically, have no impact on society?
6) Should the state take no interest about what happens to children? (Such as the offspring of a brother & sister.)
7) Does not the state have authority on how to litigate between two (or more?) people in a social contract (i.e. marriage)? (EDITED)

 

[gene.sis]

1) Is your statement an universal axiom that everyone must obey?
2) If so, by what objective standard did you receive this law?
3) Even if we grant your exceptions (can't restrict the rights of others & does no harm) who defines what those mean?

I'd say it's my opinion and probably wishful thinking.

4) Does having sex with consenting children count?

Children can't consent (fully.)

The ability to consent can also be limited by other factors.

5) Does damaging oneself mentally, let alone physically, have no impact on society?

It most likely has.
And it already harms someone. I guess a lot of states already allow measures to protect people from harming themselves.

6) Should the state take no interest about what happens to children? (Such as the offspring of a brother & sister.)

Equality before the law.
If a state prohibits related persons to procreate because of the chance of genetic diseases, they would also have to prohibit persons to procreate if they carry genes which could lead to genetic diseases. The probability to pass Huntington's disease to a child is 50 percent. If two siblings carry the gene of a genetic disease, the chance to pass it would be 25 percent. (In case of full siblings, the chance that both carry the gene should be 50 percent, so it should be chance of 12.5 percent. (Would be curious about additional information about that.))
Then they might also have to prohibit high-risk pregnancies (e.g. caused by overweight or age)

7) Does the state have no authority on how to litigate between two (or more?) people in a social contract (i.e. marriage)?

I think I don't really understand the question.

 

[porneia]

I'd say it's my opinion and probably wishful thinking.

First, thank you for the answer, your thoughts are always greatly appreciated. Your first answer, however, is the problem. If morality is based on individual opinion then it has no authority, save from a totalitarian state. What follows after such a statement is therefore also optional. I don't mean to complain or start a fight, but this question is the great question of our current culture. We are removing centuries of received moral teachings for something new. What that is, no one can seem to give an objective defense of. Which, I find a bit scary.

Sorry about the last question, my inability to write once against causes problems. It should read: "Does not the state have authority on how to litigate between two (or more?) people in a social contract (i.e. marriage)?"

 

[Actiaeon]

Equality before the law.
If a state prohibits related persons to procreate because of the chance of genetic diseases, they would also have to prohibit persons to procreate if they carry genes which could lead to genetic diseases. The probability to pass Huntington's disease to a child is 50 percent. If two siblings carry the gene of a genetic disease, the chance to pass it would be 25 percent. (In case of full siblings, the chance that both carry the gene should be 50 percent, so it should be chance of 12.5 percent. (Would be curious about additional information about that.))
Then they might also have to prohibit high-risk pregnancies (e.g. caused by overweight or age)

They have done this before in the US; they sterilized people deemed "mentally unfit." This was part of the whole Eugenics movement; of which the most famous example of which was the holocaust.

I think you are right that the state can only express Equality before the law. As you do not grant or deny anyone privileges based on a person's race, background, etc. I mean, it happens, but the goal is for that to happen.

Frankly, brother-sister relationships, in reality, would still be rare if legalized. As humans are naturally repulsed by people they grew up with; however, paradoxically, attracted to people like them. So naturally, a human is drawn to people similar to their siblings, but not their siblings.

7) Does not the state have authority on how to litigate between two (or more?) people in a social contract (i.e. marriage)?

The answer is no, for the majority of human history, marriage was little more than a partnership between two people (or families), quite literally as it would be both economic and relationship-wise. It wasn't until the more recent period of human history that the state or even religious officials also got involved.

Nowadays, in the US; the state gives many benefits to married people hence why so many LGBT people have fought for the right to marriage.

 

[porneia]

for the majority of human history, marriage was little more than a partnership between two people (or families), quite literally as it would be both economic and relationship-wise.

I would disagree with this statement, historically, at least for marriage in the West during the Christian era.

 

[Actiaeon]

I would disagree with this statement, historically, at least for marriage in the West during the Christian era.

Well marriage was defined by some church officals as sacred since 110, where some Christians would ask a priest to bless a marriage; they had little say in who got married. The church didn't even have a sacrament for marriage until 1184, where they made one for the first time in order to condemn The Cathars; a Gnostic christian sect. It wasn't until 1439 that the current catholic sacrament of marriage was created.

But my point is humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, of which even the last 2000 years is little more than a fraction of that time.

 

[porneia]

Well marriage was defined by some church officals as sacred since 110,

What are you referring to in 110 AD? I did a quick search of the Apostolic Fathers and Ignatius mentions marriage, but there is hardly any agreement to his date.

The church didn't even have a sacrament for marriage until 1184,

Officially defined, true, but the teaching goes way back to the patristic period. See Augustine's De bono coniugali.

My contention is that we are seeing a fundamental and radical shift in the basic morality of the West. Since the time of at least Charlemagne, the West has had a general agreement about morality. We can debate whether it was good or not. My concern, however, is that what is replacing it doesn't seem to have any objective foundation, at least none that anyone can explain to me.

 

[Actiaeon]

What are you referring to in 110 AD? I did a quick search of the Apostolic Fathers and Ignatius mentions marriage, but there is hardly any agreement to his date.

Well I was talking about Ingnatius; I must admit that I i'm not an expert on early Christianity. My specialty lies elsewhere; however most historians tend to date Ingnatius death to sometime during the reign of Trajan, which was 98-117 AD. I was just pulling someone else's date between then.

My contention is that we are seeing a fundamental and radical shift in the basic morality of the West. Since the time of at least Charlemagne, the West has had a general agreement about morality. We can debate whether it was good or not. My concern, however, is that what is replacing it doesn't seem to have any objective foundation, at least none that anyone can explain to me.

For an objective foundation you would have to rely on science, since science is merely a search for the truth. To reach an understanding of something objective about the universe. Something that no one can (or should) disagree with.

So if I might say, why shouldn't incest be illegal; well there is no reason for it to be.

Humans seem to have a natural aversion to incest; as it would be bad for any population to limit the potential of gene transfer. While the state may now make incest illegal, that law never existed for most of human history. Almost all human societies ban parental incest (mother-son, father-daughter, they still do sometimes occur) with most cases of incest tending to be limited to mostly cousin and 2nd cousin. (with the exception on many noble families, Egypt being one example. Cleopatra being to the product of 11 generations of incestuous marriages.) There is a far greater range regarding other relations. Cousin marriage is fine in some not in others. Brother-Sister relations were common in many societies, other examples include some Central and Balinese tribes, Ancient Incans, Hawaiians, Iranians, and even Egypt. Cleopatra was the product of 11 generations of incestuous marriages.

It has been shown the cousin marriage does not have anywhere the same level of detrimental effects as siblings, which could be why it has been far more common.

Take for example the DNA of everyone of non-subsaharan african decent, it has been shown that human populations leaving Africa experienced a genetic bottleneck. With some estimates being as low as 10,000 people contributing the DNA to everyone outside of Africa. With the Americas it is even smaller with some estimates going as low as 70.


Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, Human migrations.

So in human history incest was not too uncommon. In fact most studies on the genetic damage from inbreeding actually show no deleterious effects, owing to the rapid elimination of genetic defects and subsequent stabilization of the gene pool. (crazy right.)

Now animals show a somewhat similar aversion to incest as do humans (which makes sense, humans are animals.) With the taboo existing, like with humans, even within context of same-sex relationships, which shows that there is not a genetic reason for this taboo. But animals still do sometimes practice incest, each with varying rates; and for a variety of reasons. Rhesus Macaques, for example incest is not common; but relations between mother-son, brother-sister, and brother-brother do occur. Gibbons, incest between heterosexual encounters do occur, homosexual encounters are almost always incestuous. While sex between siblings occurs commonly within Gorillas. Japanese Macaques, for example, relations never occur between mothers and daughters or sisters. In contrast, brother-sister or mother-son relations are far more common. In Macaques aunt-niece relations occur, but more because Macaques do not recognize them a "kin."

Another further point that human incest aversion is not genetic related, is step-sister step-brother, relations. Which are placed under related sigma. (Regardless of what PornHub, says.)

Strangely, children raised with other unrelated children almost never marry anyone they grew up with. Despite their being to reason for them not to. Meanwhile siblings raised apart, with no knowledge of each other parentage, can and sometimes do enter into relationships with each other.

So an incest taboo is merely cultural, which means it was never based on any objective foundation.

So I guess my point is, incest can be illegal; but it is not necessary to do so. Then since you shouldn't make laws for something that is not a problem, therefore, incest should not be illegal.

I hope this explains my position better; and sorry for getting into the weeds of early Christianity. I probably should stick to things I'm more knowledgeable on...

Main Source: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. By Bruce Bagemihl (Part 1, Chapter 2, Primate (Homo)Sexuality and the Origins of Culture, Taboo Page 249)

Yes I did crack open a book to make this reply, and yes I know this is a forum to a porn site; thank you very much.

 

[Durzan]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Actiaeon]

Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich contracted hemophilla and it actually crippled the Russian Empire because they were desperate to save his life and brought in Rasputin where it all spiraled from there.

Well really the Russian Empire collapsed due to countless reasons, only one of which was the hemophilia (They got it from Queen Victoria); which I find to be overblown.
First and foremost was the Tsar's decision to personally take charge of the front line. Which meant if anything went wrong on the front, he would be blamed. It was WWI of course things went terribly. Since he was in charge he couldn't pass on the blame to anyone else.
Second he was terrible at running government, yet due to his wife, he disallowed anyone else to have any power.
Not wanting to be left out of the scramble for colonies he tried to gain possessions in Manchuria which provoked a war with Japan; which he lost (the first defeat of a western power to an non-western power). This lead for calls to reform even before WWI.
He only passed weak reforms. So when war did break out, and Russia started having heavy inflation and a food shortage; well that was it for the family.

Cleopatra was most likely actually extremely obese like the rest of her family and had a bird like nose according to documentation from her reign.

But considering not being attractive the bar for genetic failure is pretty high. If she was obese it is unlikely due to any genetic condition she may have had. Egypt during the reign of the Ptolemic Dynasty was a very rich nation. It sat at the cross roads of trade from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. While the state itself was run more like a modern centralized authoritarian state. When Rome took over Egypt and Augustus reformed trade and tax collection in the territory, the state provided almost half of the needed revenue of the whole Roman Empire. So it is not impossible that she was rich, so she could have ate too much.

When Charles II of Spain died, the autopsy was quoted as saying "His body did not contain a drop of blood" and he had one testicle. Black. As well as rotted internal organs.

I always call into question the validity of that source. Because frankly he never would have lived if he didn't have blood. His death however lead to the War of Spanish Succession, as he left the Spanish Empire to the grandson of the King of France. There is a long history of demonizing rulers the proved disastrous after the fact. Much of our knowledge of Roman Emperors is colored by this fact, Nero play while Rome burned; he never did that. Maria Antoinette "let them eat cake," once again never happened. I'm not saying he didn't have damage due to inbreeding; he was still unable to reproduce. But I'm pretty sure the claims are very overblown.

King Tut didn't so much as wear a hat as something to cover up the deformed skull underneath. King George III literally peed the color blue.

I don't know enough about these to comment much, But the Pharaoh Tutankhamen did have many problems; one of which was a clubfoot. His father is the infamous Akhenaten and his mother was Nefertiti, whose parentage is up to some debate but it is likely she was a Mitannian princess.

Not trying to go after Auraicide, just some of these examples I feel deserve a little more clarification.

 

[porneia]

Actiaeon,

1) Thank you for taking all the time and thought with your epistle! It was a very interesting read.

2) If I may ask, what is your general area of academic background? (I'm just curious, of course you don't have to answer if you don't want.)

3) I would guess you're still against inbreeding? Because it objectively increases the chance of congenital birth defects.

4) Though I am no scientist, the sentence that caught my focus was . . .

For an objective foundation you would have to rely on science, since science is merely a search for the truth. To reach an understanding of something objective about the universe. Something that no one can (or should) disagree with.

I strongly disagree. Science is a beautiful academic pursuit but it is not foundational or revelatory when it comes to ontology. The scientific method has little to do with the most important questions of life, such as about morality, beauty, justice, etc. I think one does a disservice to science when invoking it to explain a non-scientific problem. For example, the scientific method cannot even justify the scientific method.

 

[gene.sis]

(I think there is already a thread which broached universal morality.)

An axiom wouldn't need any (objective) justification as it is self-evident. (correct me if I'm wrong)
So there is always a need of (subjectively chosen) principles as a basis for morality.
The only rather objective basis for morality would be human instincts (if it is possible to scientifically determine which instincts humans have by nature) but I (subjectively) think that it might create more problems for society than it would solve.

So some examples could be:
- Existence/Survival
- Leading a good (?) life
- Procreation
- Painlessness (physical and mental)
- Do as you would be done by

Only if you have such a foundation, you can objectively define what is morally right and wrong.

Now, if painlessness is the basis for morality, would it be morally right to procreate and even to live? Both things will necessarily create some pain.

And even if have objectively defined what is morally right and morally wrong, two values could be opposing. So in some cases, you would be morally wrong, no matter how you decide.

Regarding the topic... is it morally wrong to risk (!) that your offspring suffers from a genetic defect? (I guess that there is always a (small) risk unless humans would be an inbreeding species with no genetic diversity.)
So if we assume that the (subjective) answer of the majority of contemporary humans would be "yes," it would be morally wrong to ignore that risk and procreate.
But would it also be wrong to love or have sex?

Should a state's rules allow what is morally right and prohibit what is morally wrong? (What if two values oppose?)
Or should a state rather predefine a set of rules to make it possible for a group of persons to live beside each other as freely as possible? (Do as you would be done by.)

Which, I find a bit scary.

I can relate to that.
The general rule should be to not to remove something before you have an adequate replacement.

 

[gene.sis]

Frankly, brother-sister relationships, in reality, would still be rare if legalized. As humans are naturally repulsed by people they grew up with; however, paradoxically, attracted to people like them. So naturally, a human is drawn to people similar to their siblings, but not their siblings.

This even makes a prohibition due to genetic concerns even more pointless in comparison to cases where incestuous procreation is practiced for generations.

I, too, guess that relatives are rather attracted to each other if they aren't grown up together. (Including siblings who got separated at birth.)
Though on the other hand, it might be difficult to estimate the dark figure of actual cases, so you never know how it would be like after legalization.

My concern, however, is that what is replacing it doesn't seem to have any objective foundation, at least none that anyone can explain to me.

No current moral system does have an objective foundation and it might even be impossible to do it objectively.

For an objective foundation you would have to rely on science, since science is merely a search for the truth. To reach an understanding of something objective about the universe. Something that no one can (or should) disagree with.

The "should" implies subjectivity.

 

[Actiaeon]

First I want to say I was scared to read the forum today; every time I've done something similar the retort is usually a personal attack. Glad to see that is not the case here. But anyway let us dig into the comments here.

2) If I may ask, what is your general area of academic background? (I'm just curious, of course you don't have to answer if you don't want.)

Biology; I tend to specialize in Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, as that is what i'm generally passionate about. (Hence I wrote an essay at 12 AM)

3) I would guess you're still against inbreeding? Because it objectively increases the chance of congenital birth defects.

Well sort of, the point of my earlier post was that inbreeding has occurred throughout the existence of life on the planet. While it does increase the likelihood of say any genetic defects the the couple can be carriers for, onto the offspring. These tend to be self-selecting, with any person with defects dying as a result or being unable to reproduce; and even if they didn't they would still be useful to any group as they still are potential uses for them. To watch out for predators, help group members hunt, and so on.
Once these members are selected out of a population the whole tends to stabilize, with any further damage due to inbreeding being limited to any deleterious sporadic mutations. Hence why small populations can live isolated on small islands; the downside being now they are all genetically similar. Which increases the likelihood of an illness wiping a population out what can kill one can kill the others. This is also compacted by the fact illnesses are also unable to continue to infect new hosts in any small population; Hench why many tribal societies throughout history have been decimated due to illness. But with modern medicine, that can easily be overcome.

I strongly disagree. Science is a beautiful academic pursuit but it is not foundational or revelatory when it comes to ontology. The scientific method has little to do with the most important questions of life, such as about morality, beauty, justice, etc. I think one does a disservice to science when invoking it to explain a non-scientific problem. For example, the scientific method cannot even justify the scientific method.

I have to disagree, science has everything to do with it. For it is a way to logically come to some understanding of the universe. The common issue brought up when discussing inbreeding is the genetic damage due to it; however many studies show that the severity of which tends to be a bit lower than expected. I see no reason this problem cannot be approached with a scientific mindset.
I would argue that there is no non-scientific problem; personally.

Regarding the topic... is it morally wrong to risk (!) that your offspring suffers from a genetic defect? (I guess that there is always a (small) risk unless humans would be an inbreeding species with no genetic diversity.)

But if it was wrong to risk your offspring for suffering than why not, sterilize carriers for a genetic illnesses; they should not reproduce because they have a chance of passing on a defect. Or you can go one step further, why should anyone reproduce; there is always the chance for mutations to form every time you have a child; why take the chance.

The Ashkanzi Jewish population has a problem with Tey-Sachs; due to them tending to marry other Ashkanzi Jews. Should you not prevent them from marrying other Ashkanzi Jews because any offspring could be killed by this and around many other genetic diseases they tend to carry?
Frankly, it is part of the evolution of species on earth. Mutations occur, and the world finds out if they are good or not.

The "should" implies subjectivity.

Well you have flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers, who just disagree with the whole point.

This even makes a prohibition due to genetic concerns even more pointless in comparison to cases where incestuous procreation is practiced for generations.

This is the crux of my argument, The Westermarck effect would select to to select against things such as immediate family relationships. Which is about all the law covers. It does nothing really to limit the possibility of human genetic defects, as those could be still passed on by even distantly related members. It is merely a cultural boundary, since the prohibition exists for same-sex relations and step-family relations of which genetics play no real part it (one doesn't have offspring the other would be like having a child with an unrelated partner). The taboo is cultural like the former prohibition of same-sex relationships.

So to sum up my point; It is a cultural taboo, with no basis in preventing genetic damage to human populations. So if you wish to argue for or against incest, please do so without using this crutch.

 

[porneia]

An axiom wouldn't need any (objective) justification as it is self-evident . . .
So some examples could be: Existence/Survival, Leading a good (?) life, Procreation, Painlessness (physical and mental), Do as you would be done by

Again, I would strongly disagree. Who determines if an axiom is an axiom? Or can anyone simply declare a statement to be an axiom and it most be universally accepted? Everything you have listed is not self-evident. Again, this is a philosophical task not a scientific one.

No current moral system does have an objective foundation and it might even be impossible to do it objectively.

How do you know this for certain?
And isn't your statement about morality claiming to be an objective fact? Thus refuting your statement?
It's like saying there is "no objective truth", yet that very statement is claiming objective truth.