Ok, Now we are talking about incest.
If you buy into the gene theory (Dawkins etc) then it says that most animals don't do incest if they can help it because it does the genes no good. The genes "tell" us this by making our brains react negativly to incest. Hence the reaction to the idea in this forum.

You know this stuff Mr Enzyme, don't you?
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:54, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

That won't wash, for several reasons.
I don't think that your claim about "most animals" stands scrutiny. I don't think that tigers carry photographs of their siblings about the place; and incest is frequent among bonobos and many other pack animals.

Even if we allow that "it does the genes no good", that won't explain the putative wrongness. There're a lot of things that're biologically counterproductive, but that don't attract anything like the same outrage. Moreover, a claim about the facts of biology is value-free: it still remains to be seen where the moral aspect gets imported.

More importantly, we're talking about sleeping with B, not having a child with them. You can presumably tell the difference.

But suppose there was a child conceived: so what? For the first generation, the risks to the child are still quite low; and, anyway, the chances are that, whatever its genetic inheritance, the child would still have a life worth living - so it would be unable to claim that it would have been better off never having come to exist. It is neither harmed nor wronged by being brought to birth.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:06, Reply)

The outrage has been programmed into us, by our genes.
The possibility of conception always follows sex so we judge it badly irrespecive of the result.

The genes act long term, and "know" that self replication in the body they inhabit is not the best way for strong genes to survive. It is a possible, but not desirable.

You may be able to observe the animal kingdom from outside of it Mr E, but most animals cannot. This is not really a thought experiment, the reaction of people is what they feel, not what they reason.

I think your first points are explored, if not answered, by knowing that many animals have a scent memory of each other, and bonobos use intercourse for other purposes, such as communication and pack order, rather than just for sexual intercourse.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:19, Reply)

If your first claim is correct, though - and you've produced no evidence for it -
it doesn't explain why (or if) that outrage is justified. And suppose someone feels no outrage - someone like me, for example: is that a sign of faulty genes? What then?

Genes don't know anything. Genes don't care about the strong surviving long-term. Genes "care" about replication to the next generation, and they have better or worse strategies for that. Still, though, there's nothing going on morally there - we're in the realm of bare facts.

I don't understand your final point. Even if we assume that just about no nonhuman actually does ever mate with a sibling - which I find very hard to believe - so what? It doesn't tell us the first thing about those rare occasions when something like that does happen. And your point about bonobos is one I can't fathom - you seem to be saying that bonobos have sex for reasons other than sex. Well, what's the difference here with A and B? Couldn't exactly the same apply - even assuming that the reasons for having sex matter much?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:29, Reply)

In no particular order,
I know I have produced no evidence, I thought you had read The selfish Gene, and such books. Maybe you should.

I put Know in quotes, I know they don't have a brain. See above.

See above. I understood that proper scientists and medical people have done research which shows that having sex with a sibling can lead to higher risk of deformities.

As for bonobos they do have sex as a form of greeting and generally communicate by shagging. This is well known, and has been on BBC2 and channel 5.

Now, I'm off out. Stop being a thicky, it suits you not.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:38, Reply)

OK - so it leads to a higher risk of deformities.
So what? Unless you think that we're obliged to have the healthiest possible children - in which case, just about all sex is wrong when IVF could be used to screen embryos - it's neither here nor there. Almost all children will lead a worthwhile life.

And, as I said before, the question here is in respect to sex, not procreation, so you're shifting the debate anyway.

As for the bonobos - yes: they have sex for all kinds of reasons. So do humans. I can't see why you think this important.

This isn't me being thick: it's just me refusing to give in to the yuck-reaction, which seems to be all you have.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:44, Reply)

is there anything wrong with just having that yuck reaction though?

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:49, Reply)

No -
But that's because I don't think it has any moral value whatsoever; nor does it indicate anything that does. So when it comes to moral debates, if all you've got is the yuck reaction, you ain't got much.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:03, Reply)

it's taken me a while
having not really woken up properly yet, but now I see where you are coming from.

I'm not one for moral judgements, and can fully state my reaction to the news was entirely "ewww", but then that wouldn't be much different from my reaction to anyone shagging Bert.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:10, Reply)

I'm not so sure it's our genes
controlling the fundamental distaste, but there is a reason for it. I think it's called Westermark Syndrome (no doubt spelt wrong) that prevents us from feeling sexual attraction to close relatives, though the effects are not found amongst siblings both full and half who were brought up away from each other (who sometimes experience the opposite- strong attraction when they finally meet) which would argue it is a socialisation aspect.

Regardless of morality, the main reason people find it tasteless in the extreme is a) the possibility of children and b) because the question inevitably is 'if someone else has fucked their sibling, does that mean inside me is the potential to do the same' which thanks to our conditioning and prior Westermark syndrome inspires revulsion. I mean even thinking about it makes me feel pretty sick
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:38, Reply)

But in this case, the prevention clearly didn't hold.
And more generally, suppose it doesn't hold in any other case: well, so what? (Think of it this way: most people are biologically disposed against doing all kinds of things - drinking paint, for example. But suppose one day I did drink paint. It's hard to see why that's morally interesting; it seems rather simply to be that I am not averse to something that you are. Anthropologically interesting, maybe; psychologically too. But morally? I don't see it.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:47, Reply)

As far as I know
Bert continually referred to her as his long lost sister. He also mentioned that they first met as grownups. i.e. genetic sexual attraction could have played a part. As I mentioned Westermark syndrome does not hold true if the children are seperated on growing up.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:49, Reply)

Yeah.
But that leaves the question of whether "normal" patterns of attraction and revulsion are morally important. The biology of it is just that - bare biology.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:50, Reply)

Well my own position
is the incest between siblings while undesirable and repulsive to me personally is their own business *as long as* they don't have children. If they want children it becomes morally objectionable.

I also think regardless of siblings, that intergenerational incest is just wrong. Morally wrong, and that covers consent, coercion, and whole number of other factors
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:59, Reply)

reading between the lines here
you are telling us you want to shag your siblings?

given that you thrive on the undesirable and repulsive
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:14, Reply)

Thanks for the vote of confidence Vipros
I'd never want to shag a sibling, especially not when I saw that video of you and your brother. Did you really have to stop 10 seconds in, and go 'shall I go get dad as well?'
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:16, Reply)

I'm leaving now
you have spoiled the internet for me forever.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:17, Reply)

click 'I like this'
before you leave, so everyone can know the sordid truth
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:20, Reply)

"regardless of siblings, that intergenerational incest is just wrong. Morally wrong, and that covers consent, coercion, and whole number of other factors"

Why is that distinct from sibling incest? If the parent is in their 60s and ane and healthy, the 'child' is in their 30s and to all intents and purposes, sane and healthy, why shouldn't they get oiled up and pornfuck?

The same moral objections apply to sibling incest as to intergenerational in this example.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:16, Reply)

I don't think they do
there is far less liklihood amongst siblings that one exercises undue control over the other, while in a parent-child relationship there is of necessity a relationship of power-submission that makes it morally far worse, since the line between consent and coercion is so close
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:19, Reply)