iPoW #4 - How's Your Sister?

[Lulujayne]

I have literally just finished watching a marathon of the brilliant old BBC adaptation of I, Claudius.... I am withholding comment until I have a shower to wash of the memory of that thing that John Hurt/Caligula does.

In some cases, it is NOT best.

[Ce6]

And neither is large amounts of lead in ones diet (which seems to be a current prevailing theory about insanity among Roman elite)
But I digress from the topic at hand...

I'm of the opinion that were incest legal as stipulated (ie: adults only, non-coerced consensual encounters), the increase of frequency of the practice would be almost negligible over what it may currently already be, just what's already there might be somewhat less hidden.
Seriously, I've seen my family. They're not what I'm attracted to. I'm still going to like what I like, writing of a law won't change that.
While I do prefer the female of our species, the overwhelming supermajority are not what I would consider fuckworthy. No matter how close or distantly we may be related.
Just because something has the potential to squick me out, doesn't necessarily give me the right to deny that experience to others.

[Warmachine]

Family is suffocating enough as it is. Start getting even more intimate and you won't be able to breathe. Keep it in the family and a person will likely become isolated from the rest of the community. Then you have stagnation.

[Leeloo]

I chose "non-procreative should be legal", because it's the best "I'm not quite sure" option. It doesn't state anything about whether or not procreative sex should be legal, which I consider a completely different question. And that question I'm not really sure about.

[Toawa]

Ah, it's time for this dance again...

"Because it makes me feel dead inside when I think about it!!! >.< " After all... Just because the thought of something makes your stomach turn

I have to admit I do have the "feeling" that it would be wrong.

. . . just. . . EW!

(b) the culterally-instated sense of "ew" that I get whenever I let my mind dwell specifically on the idea of sex with my sister or one of my parents,

Incest - ew, gross,

There is evidence to suggest that this reaction actually has a biological basis, as an evolved mechanism to combat inbreeding. It is known as the Westermarck Effect. Basically, the idea is that when you are very young and are around someone, or are around someone who is very young, or both, your brain marks them down as "a person to not mate with," and thus prompts the visceral reactions that people display when presented with the concept. The actual ages involved, or length of contact, is not known, but the effect has been observed in several contexts, including in Israeli Kibbutz towns and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage system.

(I say this dance again, because this is about the fourth time I've brought this up on the board, and each previous time people shoot it down as me essentially being a morality-police apologist. I don't particularly care what two people do as long as it's consensual, but it does us no good to ignore these observations simply because we don't like what they might imply, or they might tend to lend credence to people we disagree with.)

While I like to believe that I believe in "Safe, Sane, Consensual" . . .

Somewhere, I found an interesting essay by someone, who was of the opinion that SSC was a well-meaning but ultimately useless gesture by the fetish community... I wish I had the link on hand.

[Swordsman3003]

So it's ok to fuck your sister as long as you didn't grow up with her?

[Toawa]

So it's ok to fuck your sister as long as you didn't grow up with her?

Well, if you didn't grow up with her, then the little note never gets written; it's been suggested that siblings who are raised apart will likely find each other very attractive because of genetic similarity.

[Swordsman3003]

I know about that kind of psychological imprinting, I'm just trying to figure out your point.

[Toawa]

I know about that kind of psychological imprinting, I'm just trying to figure out your point.

Well, mostly it's a carryover from those last three times I've posted. Basically the point is that the "No Incest" social taboo is not a purely invented phenomenon; that there is a biological basis for it.

[Swordsman3003]

There's also a biological basis for rape. Your point?

[Indigo Violent]

I didn't mention the Westermarck effect because I didn't see it as relevant, but I'm certainly aware of its existence. And I for one don't think you're the morality police for pointing out that there might be a biological reason for our not liking to get intimate with family members.

[Toawa]

There's also a biological basis for rape. Your point?

I'm afraid I cannot elaborate more without doing some major thread necromancy. Suffice to say, this is a continuation of previous instances of this topic.

(Edit: Which, now that I think about it, most of the previous people who I was "discussing" with have not posted in a very long time, save for Honor, so I suppose the context is rather vague...)

[Swordsman3003]

I just want to know if you have a point. So psychological imprinting has an effect on the incest taboo.

Where does this lead us?

[Honor]

::grins::

Actually, I was waiting for you Toawa. And I think you're right... Very few of the old-timers who were there for that discussion are still here, and most of the new crowd weren't here then. Hence it's viability as a current topic.


...For anyone who's wondering, Westermarck is sloppy science built on a combination of incomplete data, artificial scope, and the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

First, it relies heavily on ignoring the propensity of contradictory evidence... Lots of people sexually explore with siblings and psychology considers it "normal".

Second, it measures the wrong thing... It measures formalized public relaitonships rather than sexual expression. It fails to mention how many times said children "played doctor", if it even noticed...

It further compounds this error by trying to make sexual attraction and marriage equal values... Since they didn't marry, there must be no, and have never been any sexual attraction.

Which is not just crap... it's obvious crap.

[ManaUser]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, IMHO, but it is an interesting question. I doubt it will be fully answered any time soon. I can't see any practical way of completely separating biology from culture in humans. For that matter, the fact the nearly every culture does have some form of incest taboo is no less interesting.

Incidentally, when I said I "have a 'feeling' it would be wrong", that feeling isn't disgust, as many people have expressed. It's most like either the attraction isn't there, or I just know it would be wrong and put it out of mind mind completely.

But if someone else told me they were having sex with their brother or sister, I don't think it would bother me at all,

[Swordsman3003]

And nearly every culture has a taboo against eating some particular animal.

[ManaUser]

And nearly every culture has a taboo against eating some particular animal.

Where does this lead us?

[Swordsman3003]

My point is, taboos don't mean anything. Some turn out to make sense, and other don't. A lot of people forget about taboos that have turned out to have no rationale behind them.

[Pyretimeth]

And nearly every culture has a taboo against eating some particular animal... My point is, taboos don't mean anything. Some turn out to make sense, and other don't. A lot of people forget about taboos that have turned out to have no rationale behind them.

I think your point would be more valid if nearly every culture had a taboo against eating the same animal. Pig, to grab a totally, not-based-in-history-at-all example.

I think your point would be more valid if different cultures had different taboos about incest... let's say, one culture was cool with siblings but not with parents, another culture gave the okay for everything more distant than first cousins, and so forth.

The fact that most cultures have mostly the same types of taboo against incest says more than a myriad of cultures arbitrarily not eating certain types of meat.

[Lulujayne]

My point is, taboos don't mean anything. Some turn out to make sense, and other don't. A lot of people forget about taboos that have turned out to have no rationale behind them.

This is true.

But although different cultures than ours have more lax "morals" (for want of a better word) regarding incest, it tends to only go so far as first cousin marriage. In essence these unions aren't so much about the sex, it's about keeping families/clans united - when these couples reproduce the risk of birth defects is only 2-3% higher than non-related unions. Of course, brother/sister unions result in a higher rate of birth defects. There are numerous examples of royal families throughout the ages where this continued practice has led to the ultimate downfall of the clan, Egypt, Rome, and just look at Prince Charles

I think it bears remembering that in our western culture, incest laws are derived from the bible, specifically Leviticus (who was a bit of an asshole) and originally the crime of incest could only be tried in an ecclesiastical court.

If we're just talking about the act of sex, then that's something else entirely, I have a gut reaction that parent/child sex is repugnant, and I feel it violates what I see the role of a parent should be. As for brother/sister/ sister/sister brother/brother I don't know. Although I know for a fact that I have no urge to sleep with my sister.

Also, in before someone brings up Bonobo monkeys