Why are most atheists against bro/sis coitus?

[Raven]

Don't you see, though? This mentality of "don't make any noise about it until the law goes away" is PRECISELY why things don't change. The law here explicitly coerces people into NOT opposing societal norms. As a very limited analogy, take the civil rights movement. How many people had to get themselves arrested for completely inane and harmless things, or get executed by the state on tenuous pretenses, or lynched by angry mobs with no repercussions for the killers, before public opinion FINALLY swayed and took the rightful side of the oppressed?

Public opinion defended by the law only changes when people push the boundaries of the law or explicitly violate it in the name of the oppressed. If they have a case, then the system is exposed for its foolish obsessions, whether they be homophobia, racism, irrational paranoia of the irreligious, you name it. You cannot work within the legal system to get people to accept your point of view. That's not how people, or society, work, it never has been and likely never will be.

Of course, I do see that. There's a difference between supporting incestuous relationships and openly admitting to the world you are in one. Who will come forward to admit participating in such a taboo thing where the majority of the public's reactions would be negative? Very few. Not enough to start any sort of movement. And where there is no movement, there will be no public show of support for such things.

Aside from one track-minded people, as I said in my previous post, the laws will never change because public health services (such as the UK's National Health Service) will fight tooth and nail against incest being made legal. And many will take their side.

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

I vaguely recall reading/hearing from somewhere there is biological stigma against doing your relatives because of the unfortunate effects on the potential children. On quite a few mamals this thing.

There also was a documentary I saw like 3 years ago that said something like you create emotional link to your siblings in childhood that kind of makes it... undesireable idea.

I suppose most have these stigmas that basically make the act not understandable. Humans are known to fear the unknown and turn that fear to hate.

My 2 cents. Atheist here btw

[Marcell]

Of course, I do see that. There's a difference between supporting incestuous relationships and openly admitting to the world you are in one. Who will come forward to admit participating in such a taboo thing where the majority of the public's reactions would be negative? Very few. Not enough to start any sort of movement. And where there is no movement, there will be no public show of support for such things.

Aside from one track-minded people, as I said in my previous post, the laws will never change because public health services (such as the UK's National Health Service) will fight tooth and nail against incest being made legal. And many will take their side.

The internet makes many things possible nowadays that were previously impossible. I think we'll being a lot of people coming together and forming movements for causes we would have never dreamed of seeing ten or twenty years ago.

[Samias]

I find the taboo against incest is less about genetics (after all, the royal families of Europe have a history of inbreeding but back then had no stigma about marrying cousins) and more that siblings, and parents, typically do not feel sexually attracted to each other. I think there are psychological barriers at work unrelated to religion and moral code that determine who we are sexually attracted to, and that people who do commit incest lack these mental inhibitors. Part of this has to do with how we are nurtured as we grow up, and people who live in the same household and are taken care of by the same people typically form a platonic relationship without sexual interest. However, siblings who grow apart from each other their entire lives may fall in love because mentally they don't have the platonic bond that you form growing up together. Cousin incest is probably the best example; you usually don't grow up closely to cousins and therefore see them as available. However, too much reproduction between closely related people in a chain multiplies any present genetic defects, so while a one-off case might not be harmful, things become increasingly dangerous between generations. So I feel like our bodies are somewhat instinctually geared to avoid pairings that lead to "weaker" children in this way.

As far as my opinion goes, consensual sex, no matter how strange, is no one else's business. However, parent (or other adult)-child incest is typically a product of sexual abuse and most stories I've seen from people who have been knowingly (and even consensually) involved in those kinds of relationships admit there isn't a sense of love involved. However, I don't see incest as a good long-term decision and I don't particularly mind that there are laws in place that forbid close family from marriage.

Ironically(?) most creation stories and stories of gods contain incest. So even with the storytelling of siblings reproducing with other siblings, humans still don't frequently become sexually involved with their family.

[Nostalgia]

Simply because of scientific evidence that confirms it will most likely negatively impact the children.

As for sex-only, no children involved (so like protective incest sex?), I'm not too sure. It seems also problematic (especially if a power dynamic is involved). Also, in a sense, forbidding it makes it so there won't be accidental children born from incest.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Nostalgia

[Dwalin2010]

Really, if incest is okay, where will such tender and sublime things as brotherly/sisterly affection end up? Must really EVERYTHING be reduced to sex?

[Anouleth]

Okay, so Theists I understand. In most religious books there are specific passages that categorically state don't do it. Or at least I know there is in Christianity and assume it's there in other religions because they don't either. But in an age like now where almost anything consensual is accepted, why is this an exception? And don't simply say "it's creepy as ****", tell me why it's creepy.

A common reason given is that a child of incest is much more likely to suffer from genetic disorders, because most people are carriers of some recessive genetic disorder or another. However, that is a poor argument. We don't argue that there should be laws against people who carry genetic disorders having sex; or old people having sex (I recall reading somewhere that a child from a mother over the age of 40 is just as likely to suffer from complications as a child from a incestuous couple), nor do we permit incestuous couples if one of them is infertile.

Ultimately, people oppose it just because they're squicked out by it. After all, most people consider the idea of having sex with someone in their close family to be disgusting. But that's a pretty bad reason too. Just because we're disgusting by the idea of doing it ourselves is no reason to ban other people from doing it.

Simply because of scientific evidence that confirms it will most likely negatively impact the children.

As for sex-only, no children involved (so like protective incest sex?), I'm not too sure. I'm assuming it is also problematic? In a sense, forbidding it makes it so there won't be accidental children born from incest.

Does that mean that incest is okay if it's gay incest?

[Rewjeo]

Really, if incest is okay, where will such tender and sublime things as brotherly/sisterly affection end up? Must really EVERYTHING be reduced to sex?

There's a world of difference between "can" and "must." People here are simply saying that incest can be okay, not that it's necessary or an ideal of some kind.

[Dwalin2010]

There's a world of difference between "can" and "must." People here are simply saying that incest can be okay, not that it's necessary or an ideal of some kind.

Don't know what to say to this, apart from that it's really a pity the concept of "morality" has absolutely no importance nowadays. Every time somebody raises this point, they are told that "morality isn't universal, even pedophiles have their own concept of morality". Soon people will start advocating murder and rape as well, the only thing that still prevents them from doing so is the fact that, fortunately, the ideal of "not harming others" is still considered more important than "individual freedom".

Edited May 6, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

There is clear difference between letting someone do something that has absolutely no harm to others or themselves and letting someone do something that harms others or themselves. Why is the "next you allow murder and shit" argument used every time old tabus are reconsidered?

[Dwalin2010]

There is clear difference between letting someone do something that has absolutely no harm to others or themselves and letting someone do something that harms others or themselves. Why is the "next you allow murder and shit" argument used every time old tabus are reconsidered?

Theoretically someone could say that pedophiles don't "harm" children because they "seduce" them, not "rape" them, Still, nobody advocates pedophilia. And it isn't only about taboos. It's also about the beauty of pure relationships. If it starts to be normal for brothers and sisters to have sex with each other, where will the world end up? Seriously, I understand that "freedom" is a good concept, but why be so extreme?

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

Pedophiles most definitely do harm the kids on mental (and in quite a few cases physical) level. If pedophilia was completely and utterly harmless to the kid and s/he wanted it, it would be ok from my POV. However its harmful and thus not acceptable. Very different from bro/sis coitus. As for beauty of pure relationships, being gay is these days okay and normal. Where did the world end up? We got better relationships all around as people get more accepting of gay love. Being gay is normal but not very common. The fact that being gay is ok does not change a damn thing relationships. If bro/sis coitus is accepted it will likely be just as accepting gays. Not very common and not harmful outside shallow minded people giving you hard time for it

[Dwalin2010]

Pedophiles most definitely do harm the kids on mental (and in quite a few cases physical) level. If pedophilia was completely and utterly harmless to the kid and s/he wanted it, it would be ok from my POV. However its harmful and thus not acceptable. Very different from bro/sis coitus. As for beauty of pure relationships, being gay is these days okay and normal. Where did the world end up? We got better relationships all around as people get more accepting of gay love. Being gay is normal but not very common. The fact that being gay is ok does not change a damn thing relationships. If bro/sis coitus is accepted it will likely be just as accepting gays. Not very common and not harmful outside shallow minded people giving you hard time for it

Many people are born gay, they can't be blamed for that. Have you ever heard about a person born with a sexual obsession for relatives?

[Esau of Isaac]

Many people are born gay, they can't be blamed for that. Have you ever heard about a person born with a sexual obsession for relatives?

There's no scientific consensus that many people are born gay. There is a large debate over whether homosexuality is a solely nature or nurture phenomenon, or (most commonly) a combination of both. Why is it possible to be born homosexual but not born with a predisposition towards certain kinds of sex?

Either way, how does that argue with what he had said?

[Dwalin2010]

There's no scientific consensus that many people are born gay. There is a large debate over whether homosexuality is a solely nature or nurture phenomenon, or (most commonly) a combination of both. Why is it possible to be born homosexual but not born with a predisposition towards certain kinds of sex?

Either way, how does that argue with what he had said?

Well, I don't know what to say. It's just I am an idealist, a traditionalist, I like elevated, spiritual things. Don't really know how to explain. It's just like scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God.

Also, I am seriously worried about the fact that people could make a further step in advocating "freedom" by saying it's more important than "not harming others". I wasn't joking.

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

If freedom is more important than not harming others, society cannot exist. We know for sure allowing stealing and murder will cause harm to us. We know for sure allowing pedophilia and rape is harmful. There is absolutely no harm in allowing bro/sis coitus is it doesn't produce kids, doesn't involve pedophilia/rape/whatever. It might sound like bro/sis coitus is step towards allowing murder/rape/whatever but those things are harmful and doing them limits other people's freedom while allowing bro/sis coitus does the exact opposite of putting limits on someone's freedom. I am not in support of allowing harmful things like rape and murder, I simply say that if you can do something without harming anyone, you should be allowed to do it.

Also I am not saying you are born wanting to have sex with your bro/sis like you are born gay. However falling for your bro/sis is something you cannot control just like your sexual orientation. You either fall for your bro/sis or not, usually not. Romeo wouldn't have fallen for girl from rivalling house could love be controlled now would he?

Edited May 6, 2013 by Sho.M.the.Fallen

[Dwalin2010]

The problem is also that allowing things like that, it's not like we will have just a few perverts who go after their siblings. Somebody might start doing it just to try something "new", it may become a fashion. it may kill one of the last non-sexual love examples that exist in this society. People's worst sides may activate themselves while before they wouldn't think about it.

If most people loathe incest, I don't think it's a negative trait to be fought. Twisting nature just for the sake of it is wrong, at least in my opinion.

I have comprehension toward gays (not towards people who use the defense of gay rights as an excuse for being rude though), but incest is different. Even though I surely can't do anything about it, I really wouldn't like to live that long to see incest becoming "normal" just in the name of "freedom". Extremism is always bad in my opinion, even "freedom" extremism.

[Florete]

Many people are born gay, they can't be blamed for that. Have you ever heard about a person born with a sexual obsession for relatives?

Yeah. Ever heard of Freud? The Westermarck effect and genetic sexual attraction? This is actually a real thing.

Even though I surely can't do anything about it, I really wouldn't like to live that long to see incest becoming "normal" just in the name of "freedom". Extremism is always bad in my opinion, even "freedom" extremism.

I highly doubt incest will ever be seen as normal. There's a difference between "normal" and "accepted."

Edited May 6, 2013 by Red Fox of Fire

[Redwall]

Sigh.

The problem is also that allowing things like that, it's not like we will have just a few perverts who go after their siblings. Somebody might start doing it just to try something "new", it may become a fashion.

Slippery slope. You're simply making up shit: no one is advocating "new" things for the sake of being "new." Incest is not, has never been, and likely never will be "fashionable," to use your word. Your other posts are similarly embarrassing.

There are two questions to be answered: 1) are most atheists against bro-sis coitus being legalized, and 2) are most atheists against bro-sis coitus in the sense that they would not themselves engage in it. My feeling is that people tend to conflate the two questions.

1) I don't have a problem if a brother and sister have consensual sex, so long as they use birth control to avoid conceiving of a messed-up fetus; for this reason, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it legalized, albeit with required birth control or something.

2) Would most atheists themselves engage in bro-sis coitus? No; they generally have no interest in it. However, it is not my or anyone else's business to interfere in the lives of those who do engage in such actions as long as there is no lasting harm (a screwed-up fetus would be an example of lasting harm).

[Chiki]

Incest could definitely become a fashion. 30 years ago no one was fond of gay marriage. Morals change a a lot. But I don't think incest per se is bad at all as long as it's safe.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Olwen

[Redwall]

If by "fashionable" you mean "accepted," then I would agree that incest may become accepted at some point in a similar way that gay marriage is becoming increasingly accepted; but dictionary.com defines fashionable differently.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Redwall

[Chiki]

I meant accepted, yeah.

[Tamanoir]

But you can't legalize incest without authorizing them to have children.

And, even without accounting the scientific problem, it may be really hard for a child to find his place, in his family, and by extent, in the society if his parents are also brother and sisters (That makes them uncles and aunts too, no ?).

It's extremely confusing.

That's my only reserve, honnestly...

Also, this debate exceed religious and political frontiers.

[Esau of Isaac]

But you can't legalize incest without authorizing them to have children.

How? You can instead of punishing incest punish for children born through incest. But that's neither here nor there, because the risks of genetic disorders as a result of incest are comparatively minor unless carried out in a concerted fashion over generations. And this is from incest that is most direct, i.e. mother-son, father-daughter. Once you move even to a relationship with a cousin the risks drop off quite a bit.

And, even without accounting the scientific problem, it may be really hard for a child to find his place, in his family, and by extent, in the society if his parents are also brother and sisters (That makes them uncles and aunts too, no ?).

It's extremely confusing.

Okay, true, a child could have a hard time growing up in a family of incestuous pairings. But that's a hard stance to take when arguing for the illegality of the act unless you're also against anything but the most traditional pairing. Most of the kids I grew up with had some kind of odd familial concern at one time or another; a father convicted of a homicide here, a mother so obese she could not see her feet there, and so on and so forth. A friend of mine was relentlessly mocked as he was growing up simply because his mother was, quite frankly, incredibly hideous-looking. I don't think it would be fair to say that his mother should have been barred from producing a child because of what happened, however.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Green Poet]

Sigh.

Slippery slope. You're simply making up shit: no one is advocating "new" things for the sake of being "new." Incest is not, has never been, and likely never will be "fashionable," to use your word. Your other posts are similarly embarrassing.

That's not actually an example of slippery slope; you're saying it's fallacious for him to cite incest as something that may become "fashionable" because you personally believe it's not likely.

What could be considered slippery slope is his implied assumption that the social vogue is determined by the law, but I don't see how that's embarrassing, as we all know that arguments that fall under some tenuous logical fallacy are generally still credible thoughts. Let's try to keep the conversation constructive?