Incest

[OneBadMother]

I had to read a book involving twincest for English class, and this question popped into my head.

[pavman]

I picked the first choice because I assumed that the adopted siblings aren't related. Incest is unnatural due to the genetic effects it can produce over the long-term, so sibling incest when neither are related is less of a moral problem than twins separated at birth.

Didn't this happen recently in the UK?

[Caramel]

Worst as in moraly bad or worst for the parties involved?

Still, option 1 is worse since they were unaware of their genetic relation. Can you imagine what it must do to their lives when they find out? What if they give birth to a gentically defective child?

Genetically unrelated adopted siblings only have the moral issues to deal with; how people see them. They will probably have a hard time with the world, but so do gay people, for example.

[rwyatt365]

I didn't vote, because I felt that neither was "worse".

In the case of fraternal twins, the genetic issues arising from that pairing might be cause for concern. But, morally, I think their lack of awareness of the circumstances absolves them (IMHO) of any wrong-doing.

In the case of the adoptive siblings, the moral dilemma might be a cause for concern. But since they are both adopted, there is no genetic problem.

So, the two cancel each other out!

[ElstonGunn]

I don't see any problem with biologically unrelated siblings gettin' it on if they want to. If I had an adopted sister, I doubt that I would want to do that, but I don't think it would be inherently wrong from a moral standpoint if I did.

[deicruxified]

on the "f" frequency... i happen to know someone who became intimate with his long lost sister. he discovered that her girlfriend of 5 years was her sister in a family affair he never got to attend to. when he saw the pictures, her mom told him that she (his gf) is his long lost half-sister. the story as to why they got separated revolved on poverty. her mother had to have her sister adopted to a well-of family and when the time their family was financially stable she searched for her younger daughter.

as far as bio is concerned, yep i'd have to go with the rest that it has some effects on the offpring when two of the same genetic tree mate.

[pavman]

crap, I voted for the wrong one. Dag nabit!

Oh wait, never mind. I'm an idjut.

BTW, the word of the day is Mornternoon. Used in cases where you are in one time zone, and someone you are communicating with is in another, and it just happens to be noon there, but still 11am where you are (or vice versa).

[INTJoe]

I voted the 2nd option, because the participants know damn well they are family members.

It's funny you start this thread because like 2 weeks ago a couple in England filed for divorce when they discovered they were long-lost twins. :O

Awkward.......you gotta wonder if they still boned eachother a few times while the paperwork was going through.

[Antares]

I vote for the first because the second one isn't 'technically' incest, and would have a much lower chance of producing a genetically defected child. Unless a couple gave birth to twins, and another couple unwittingly adopted them both thinking they were from different families (Ok. Nah. That belongs in extremely unbelievable drama)

[PortInStorm]

Crap, I clicked the wrong one by mistake (clicked the adopted siblings one). In reality, there's no risk in genetically unrelated siblings having sex, but there is danger to potential offspring if parents already share 50% of genes (fraternal twins).

[yondyr]

I don't recognise incest as anything that should be illegal. As long as they are of the age of consent what two people do together is none of my or anyone elses business. Issue from such activities is an entirely different matter and ALL people should have genetic testing before reproducing. It would be interesting to see if two brilliant minds with no genetic hazards detected could create yet another.

[narutofanninja]

I had to read a book involving twincest for English class, and this question popped into my head.

Is incest really that bad? I mean, I understand why it can be looked down upon, but I never understood why people have a big deal with it.

Gay marriage - people are starting to have a tolerance for it.
Maybe the same for incest one day. I personally have no objections to it.

Worst as in moraly bad or worst for the parties involved?

Still, option 1 is worse since they were unaware of their genetic relation. Can you imagine what it must do to their lives when they find out? What if they give birth to a gentically defective child?



What is exactly a genetically defective child, just genetic invariance?

[SeaCzar]

I am a firm believer that incest should be kept in the family!!

[yondyr]

rofl, but did you vote?

[Zilal]

Great question. (It made me laugh when I read above it: "The Lounge Discussions about members and lighthearted topics that don't fit in the other forums." Heh. This question asks us to decide what "worse" means for us, which could turn up some interesting stuff.

I used to assume there wasn't much problem with, I dunno, consensual incest until I read a Dan Savage column on it... he said that while in all other cases he's for just about anything that's consensual, he's against incest because he thinks there are just so many emotional issues with family that it's essentially impossible to give consent in the way it ought to be given.

[INTJoe]

Is incest really that bad? I never understood why people have a big deal with it.

I personally have no objections to it.


Wait.............what? Incest isn't bad? People make it too big a deal? You don't object to it?

What are your arguments in favor of incest? Why is it not a big deal?

I don't want my kids to be born with cubed heads, webbed feet, and the inability for their blood to clot. But I'm old-fashioned. :)

[E148]

I chose the first one because if it is bad for cousins it has to worse for twins and less bad for siblings. The closer the relationship the worse. It is an opinion because I am not sure.

[yondyr]

And those disorders are prominent in your family, INTJoe? So that being recessive on both sides of your family, they could come to full flower with your progeny?

[bucolic_]

I don't even consider the second one incest. The "big deal" with incest is the genetic aspect of it. A little odd perhaps, but I really wouldn't care.

[Colette]

I don't even consider the second one incest. The "big deal" with incest is the genetic aspect of it. A little odd perhaps, but I really wouldn't care.

Yes it's interesting (and instructive I think, too) that incest is almost a universal taboo, across any society (no matter how primitive or undeveloped) that you care to investigate. There are some odd historical exceptions and anomalies to this principle but, for the most part, the 'bar' is nearly universal. Early on in its inception, I think, humankind discovered that incestuous relationships (and indeed a small gene pool) concentrates negative genetic traits and disorders, and that it was something not merely to be discouraged, but more than that, to be actively criminalized and/or punished.

And to the OP: I think we all read 'Flowers in the Attic' at some stage ;)

[coffeeloverfreak]

There's a piece of info missing from this question, namely, whether the two adoptive siblings knew they were adopted at the time of the incestuous encounter(s).

Presumably, two adoptive siblings who thought they were related by blood would think of it differently from two adoptive siblings who knew full well from the time they were very young that they were adopted. That knowledge in and of itself would naturally force them to develop a different kind of relationship.

There have been cases of people who were adopted at an older age (say, teenagers or older children) falling in love with and even eventually marrying their adoptive siblings. The "from birth" thing would make it harder to accept, of course. But we could imagine circumstances where they wouldn't have felt like "true" siblings, for example, if the parents made a point of emphasizing this, or if one was the natural child and one the adoptive child and the parents constantly singled out the adoptive child for different treatment.

Anyway, for a lot of reasons, I picked the first one, because even if the two people involved weren't aware they were doing anything wrong at the time, the consequences could be much worse - for them if they found out, and for their prospective offspring if it were to be genetically affected.

[yondyr]

I would like to point out again that there are two separate reasons for a ban on incest. The first is cultural, admittedly very widespread but even that is based upon genetics. That marriage between carriers of say, cystic fibrosis are not banned from producing children when the incidence of their offspring suffering that disease is raised to one in four makes a mockery of the justification of the incest laws. Removing the need for the approval of society to a coupling, I can see that siblings raised together with similar genes, attitudes, affection could naturally cleave to each other.. and I'm sure some do live together in the full meaning of the word...sadly they have to do it in secret.

[Beery Swine]

I picked the top one, but I don't really care what people do with themselves. It's their business.

[fonmaneal]

Incest, a game the whole family can play.
If I dont have to pay for there children, I dont care what they do.
It's there life, so if they enjoy, and it's not in my house, it's not my busness.

[Danisty]

I had to read a book involving twincest for English class, and this question popped into my head.What book was that? I'm curious.

I don't have a problem with either. Any adults who consent can have sex as far as I'm concerned.

[athenian200]

When you say "worse," do you mean in terms of consequences, or morally?

I'd say the people in the first option are on good ground morally, because they didn't know, and it isn't fair to judge them for something they didn't know. However, the potential consequences of their actions would be worse.

In the second option, the people are on terrible ground morally, and it's painful for their families. However, the potential consequences are less.

Basically, I think people should be forgiven for incest if they were unaware that they were related, although they should stop once they find out.