How do you feel about incest?

[MOTO13]

That'd be an awesome child, I hope I have a kid that comes out that way. My sisters aren't what I consider attractive though, and we're only half-siblings, I'm not sure it'd work. Maybe I'll take a run at a hot cousin or something. It's worth a shot, right?

Well, good luck with that. Based on your post, keeping it in the family my be your only option. Like I said, take a look at the family stick and trace your heritage, Bigfoot may be an anscestor. Maybe you can hit up Jack Links for a jerky ad.

[jacknife737]

So it is fine to have it illegal because that is what most people think? Like most people thought about homosexuality not too long ago?

No. It should continue to remain illegal due to the other two reasons (the biological and social considerations) i suggested in my original post.

And I'd also be a bit uncomfortable comparing the plight of homosexuals to incest rights.

[RageAndLov]

And I'd also be a bit uncomfortable comparing the plight of homosexuals to incest rights.

Why? There is no biological reason not to. It is very weird, but what is wrong with it to such a degree that no one should be allowed to do it? I have contemplated this for a long time.

[Jakebert]

The issue being overlooked is that when familial relations are involved, "consent" is a tricky term to agree on and often there are certain underlying issues going on that are much more complex than someone agreeing or not agreeing. There's also the issue of if an older brother and younger sister disclose an incestuous relationship as adults, there's like a 90% chance it started because he molested her as a child and she kept going along with it. Family relationships have power dynamics that other relationships don't.

[Alison]

I was actually thinking about this the other day (I'm reading A Song of Ice and Fire series), and while at first I was like "Jesus, that's sick", I started thinking about it, and you know, if both parties are actually, full-heartedly, consenting adults (and using extremely effective protection), then....well...I guess it's there choice. I couldn't really come up with a very solid reason as to why it should be illegal, minus, of course, the possible defects to children.
But I guess with contraception there's always the smallest chance still remaining that a child could be conceived. So, I don't know.
Other than that, I'd never ever even dream of it, and despite saying "let them do as they want", I'd probably be extremely shocked and quite "errgghh!" if I found out someone I knew was fucking their sister/mother/father/brother.

I haven't really gotten anywhere with this post.

[fullmarriageequality]

I have done much research into this, including interviewing many people who are in ongoing relationships with close relatives. I'll address the common issues.

There are a many countries and a few US states that have no laws against consensual adult incest. Those states have not collapsed.

CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry. Please look up Huntington's Disease. There is no law against people with that having children.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning. If an 19-year-old woman can consent to sex with the President of the United States, or an unrelated 50-year-old neighbor who babysat her from birth, how can we say she can't consent to sex with her 21-year-old brother or sister, or the father who didn't even know she existed until she was 18?

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.

Don't like it? Don't do it. But please have compassion for people who have loving relationships and have to hide them.

[RageAndLov]

^I agree with this, but I find it funny that the user registered just to post in an incest thread.

[jacknife737]

Google the first few lines - its a spam post.

Also, Jakebert did a better job of expanding/explaining my concerns regarding the social aspect of such relationships.

[Tijs]

Yup spam. But I'll leave that post undeleted.

[Llamas]

The issue being overlooked is that when familial relations are involved, "consent" is a tricky term to agree on and often there are certain underlying issues going on that are much more complex than someone agreeing or not agreeing. There's also the issue of if an older brother and younger sister disclose an incestuous relationship as adults, there's like a 90% chance it started because he molested her as a child and she kept going along with it. Family relationships have power dynamics that other relationships don't.

Honestly, this argument sounds a lot like the argument that most pedophiles are men who go after boys. Legalizing adult consensual relationships between people of the same sex does not make this more common or more accepted; legalizing adult consensual relationships between relatives would not cause what you described to be any more common or accepted, either.

4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry. Please look up Huntington's Disease. There is no law against people with that having children.

I know this a spam account, but whatever. I'd actually support it *not* being a "right" for anyone to have as many children as they want. I think it'd be great if abortion was taken more seriously and people like drug addicts, those who are likely to pass on horrible diseases, those who already have like 5 kids, etc, etc were limited. But I know my opinion is very unpopular, so I usually just shut my mouth. But since I support that, I think it's fair for me to support related folks not reproducing.

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning. If an 19-year-old woman can consent to sex with the President of the United States, or an unrelated 50-year-old neighbor who babysat her from birth, how can we say she can't consent to sex with her 21-year-old brother or sister, or the father who didn't even know she existed until she was 18?

This I agree with completely.