Adult Consensual Incest (how bad is it?)

Interesting posts. Thanks for linking.

Though I'm not sure how persuasive it is to assert without evidence that the myths most people believe are wrong. Not that these myths resting on anything but unfounded assertion either, of course, but still.

Unfortunately, social scientific research on the topic remains guided by the underlying assumption that incest and child abuse are all but synonymous. There are few pieces of scholarly work that attempt to bring real evidence to bear on the prevalence of fantasies or activities, let alone its causes or consequences.

Here's one of the few exceptions though. The authors offer reasonably persuasive evidence against the Westermarck hypothesis (the idea that the common aversion to incest is an evolutionary defense mechanism), suggesting instead that incest avoidance is primarily a social construct:

http://www.ic.stonybrook.edu/Stu/eshor/Articles/2009/2009 -- AJS.pdf

Full disclosure: I am not a sociologist, though I am an academic in one of the other social sciences. So I'm eally only partially qualified to make statements about how persuasive their evidence is.

HeyAll said:

I was coincidently just reading this article someone wrote on incest.

http://www.literotica.com/s/an-analysis-on-incest

It's a fun little read which might be relevent to this topic.


Here is another good one:

http://www.literotica.com/s/incest-debunking-the-myths

Click to expand...

The author in the second link speaks of pedophiles not only the ones who would be interested in incest, but the author in the first link talks of consensual incest.

While defining incest we just talk about the sexual aspect of it. We just judge the person committing incest nothing more than a sick pervert. We don't think about the emotional and psychological circumstances under which it was committed. We judge people without knowing the actual facts.

Click to expand...

These words speak to me as the pedophile argument as well.
I guess that's a one way street, since a child can't understand sexual feelings yet, but what the pedophile fight is about is the right to have sexual feelings for children without doing anything sexual and not be considered deviants and the scum of the Earth (and not to have their privacy invaded by neighborhood watches, put on a public list displaying name and personal details to the world, and not being told where to live and work).

No, I do not have these urges, and I don't support a supposed right to have sex with kids under 18.

I read some articles that put adult consensual incest in the same category as gay marriage (made legal October/September 2010), saying incest WILL (not might) be law soon and pedophilia is the next logical step. (2010 articles)

Fantasies_only said:

The author in the second link speaks of pedophiles not only the ones who would be interested in incest, but the author in the first link talks of consensual incest.

These words speak to me as the pedophile argument as well.
I guess that's a one way street, since a child can't understand sexual feelings yet, but what the pedophile fight is about is the right to have sexual feelings for children without doing anything sexual and not be considered deviants and the scum of the Earth (and not to have their privacy invaded by neighborhood watches, put on a public list displaying name and personal details to the world, and not being told where to live and work).

No, I do not have these urges, and I don't support a supposed right to have sex with kids under 18.

I read some articles that put adult consensual incest in the same category as gay marriage (made legal October/September 2010), saying incest WILL (not might) be law soon and pedophilia is the next logical step. (2010 articles)

Click to expand...

mmm, lets not cloud this up, Pedophilia is alot different then incest or homosexuality lol. like i get the love of youthfulness and whatnot, But pedophilia needs to remain in the head, as a fantasy, or in roleplay. Incest isnt traumatic to the involved parties. Like, the laws against incest dont make sense, Pedophilia theres some pretty valid ground behind the rules, And they arent put on those lists for no reason, Usually you've broken a law.
(Personal opinion on pedophilia, Dont rape me plox LOL)

CorruptedInnocence said:

mmm, lets not cloud this up, Pedophilia is alot different then incest or homosexuality lol. like i get the love of youthfulness and whatnot, But pedophilia needs to remain in the head, as a fantasy, or in roleplay. Incest isnt traumatic to the involved parties. Like, the laws against incest dont make sense, Pedophilia theres some pretty valid ground behind the rules, And they arent put on those lists for no reason, Usually you've broken a law.
(Personal opinion on pedophilia, Dont rape me plox LOL)

Click to expand...

Actually, that's what I said in a way.
Does it matter if you go to the park everyday in the hopes to see some kids playing and fantasize about them sexually, or stay at home all day in the company of adults and fantasize sexually about children?

Fantasies_only said:

I think incest should be legalized.

Click to expand...

Every time something is made legal, it becomes mundane. It's more exciting when it is taboo. Everyone loves the feeling of getting away with something.

Very_Bad_Man said:

The stigma attached to such relationships also encompass the high degree of birth defects relating to incestuous births. I would rather forgo legalizing such relationships.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that all incestuous relationships lead to pregnancy. Besides, I don't think science is far enough advanced to tell if a birth defect is caused by incest or some other reason, and being the case, I don't think we can arbitrarily say that incest automatically causes birth defects.

Stella_Omega said:

I always wondered if the tea party was the result of too many incestuous knock ups. But maybe you're right-- maybe political morons just happen.

Click to expand...

Soooo, you're saying that Obama is a political moron because he is the result of an incestuous relationship?

Fantasies_only said:

Actually, that's what I said in a way.
Does it matter if you go to the park everyday in the hopes to see some kids playing and fantasize about them sexually, or stay at home all day in the company of adults and fantasize sexually about children?

Click to expand...

Going to the park is allowing yourself one more step towards actual molestation.

I don't think "slippery slope" arguments are ever legitimate in general terms. But it's something to worry about if you know you have this tendency.

Stella_Omega said:

But it's something to worry about if you know you have this tendency.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like teasing yourself by going to a bar or your crackhead friend's house. Don't bring yourself to addiction.

Why does every thread about incest turn into a rant about child molestation? Adult incest has nothing what-so-ever to do with child molestation.

When I see the same people rant about child molestation over and over, I have to wonder about their motives. Is it possible that these people who rail so much against child molestation were molested as children themselves, is it possible that these people are insecure about their own sexual attraction toward children?

Is it possible that we have child molesters, (or potential child molesters), who are trying to convince themselves they are not really sexually attracted to children?

I wonder about people protest too much. hmmm

Nasty_Deeds, that's a good question.

Because of the family connection, I think. Many of us pretty well leave the nest as adults, and the words "Mother, Father, Sister, Brother" are childhood words.

And, in fairness, many people only ever hear the word incest when the news is reporting on a case of a father abusing his daughter. It is for this reason that most people think that fathers abusing daughters is the most common form of child abuse, even though numerous studies have found that the modal form of child abuse involves an older brother abusing his younger sister.

The overgeneralization from a handful of extremely tragic incidents that are covered in the news is unfortunate. But not all that difficult to understand, IMHO. Most people hold lots of beliefs that are wildly at odds with the facts but fully consistent with misleading media coverage.

I'm not defending those who come on these boards and flame anyone who enjoys fantasizing about *consensual* acts among *adults*. I too find that very tiresome. But I'm not sure we need to assume they are latent pedophiles either...

^I meant to say the modal form of intra-familial child abuse is perpetrated by brothers, for the record. In case anyone was fact checking.

Of course, there is also strong evidence that most acts of child abuse are not committed by family members.

That ill-chosen example aside, the bigger point is that incest is only ever spoken about in polite company when people are discussing a case of incestuous child abuse. So while it does not necessarily follow logically that incest is synonymous with child abuse, it's not hard to see how may people end up conflating the two.

Fantasies_only said:

cybersexy_dk, I was speaking of what should be, not what is.

Click to expand...

As was I.

Fantasies_only said:

It was that way in the past, but by early or mid 20s (age not decade) the mentally handicapped may choose who to have sex with without consent of parent or guardian.

Click to expand...

No, only with each other as is also the case with children. If their minds are at the developmental stage of a 10-year-old they may not have sex with a mentally sound 30-year-old (or rather the other way around, of course).

CorruptedInnocence said:

Not even really dangerous either, i think it takes like what? 2 or 3 generations of like brother / sister blood relation birth to actually achieve the genetic mutations that people are always so afraid of?

Click to expand...

No, that can happen in any generation - but this also the case for non-related individuals having children by each other. It's not being related that causes birth defects, it's a genetic predisposition that causes them. Two people who are related are likely to have the same genetic predispositions, but two unrelated people can have them too. The risks are higher when people are related, but not nearly as high as a lot of people seem to assume. I fact a brother/sister couple statistically have a 75% chance of having healthy children by each other, which is of course lower than the general 95% but still very high. With genetic screening the risk can be almost completely illiminated, but such will ofcourse be practically impossible for incestous couples so long as incest is illegal.

By the way, an often overlooked element in this discussion is that incestous couples can also have a BETTER than average gene pool, making their children HEALTHIER than the general population. Just today I read an article in a scientific magazine about a "relatively inbred" community (that was the term used) where cancer and diabetes had been eliminated because none of their ancestors were genetically predisposed for it - and don't forget the ancient Egyptian Queen Cleopatra who was the result of more than 300 years of systematic inbreeding yet was known in both her own time and ours as one of the world's most intelligent and desirable women.

cybersexy_dk said:

By the way, an often overlooked element in this discussion is that incestous couples can also have a BETTER than average gene pool, making their children HEALTHIER than the general population. Just today I read an article in a scientific magazine about a "relatively inbred" community (that was the term used) where cancer and diabetes had been eliminated because none of their ancestors were genetically predisposed for it - and don't forget the ancient Egyptian Queen Cleopatra who was the result of more than 300 years of systematic inbreeding yet was known in both her own time and ours as one of the world's most intelligent and desirable women.

Click to expand...

This is quite interesting. You are saying that it would actually be possible to create a superior human being through inbreeding. I have never looked at it from this standpoint. All you ever hear is people ranting about how incest causes birth defects, but if you were selective in who was allowed to reproduce, you could actually eliminate birth defects and other health problems. Sooo, maybe eugenics does have a place after all, very interesting.

cybersexy_dk said:

No, only with each other as is also the case with children. If their minds are at the developmental stage of a 10-year-old they may not have sex with a mentally sound 30-year-old (or rather the other way around, of course).

Click to expand...

You're assuming mentally handicapped means an age regression of the mind.
People with multiple personality disorder and even bipolar people can marry.

If you're talking about autism or Asperger's, there are different degrees of these disorders, so someone with Asperger's can have sex without parental consent, and someone with autism can marry without parental consent.

cybersexy_dk said:

By the way, an often overlooked element in this discussion is that incestous couples can also have a BETTER than average gene pool, making their children HEALTHIER than the general population. Just today I read an article in a scientific magazine about a "relatively inbred" community (that was the term used) where cancer and diabetes had been eliminated because none of their ancestors were genetically predisposed for it - and don't forget the ancient Egyptian Queen Cleopatra who was the result of more than 300 years of systematic inbreeding yet was known in both her own time and ours as one of the world's most intelligent and desirable women.

Click to expand...

Nasty_Deeds said:

This is quite interesting. You are saying that it would actually be possible to create a superior human being through inbreeding. I have never looked at it from this standpoint. All you ever hear is people ranting about how incest causes birth defects, but if you were selective in who was allowed to reproduce, you could actually eliminate birth defects and other health problems. Sooo, maybe eugenics does have a place after all, very interesting.

Click to expand...

This isn't how incest works (unless impregnated artificially as well).
One might not have particularly strong genes in the family (DNA can be stretched just so far without breaking down).
Also one usually has incest out of love not lust, but I realize this is not always the case.

cybersexy_dk, you're talking about something that came up about 2 or 3 yeas ago called "The Frankenstein Syndrome".
By the title you would think it means cloning, but that's really just one part of it (stem cells), it's really gene manipulation, selecting exactly what traits you want your baby to have.

Fantasies_only said:

You're assuming mentally handicapped means an age regression of the mind.

Click to expand...

No, I just used that as an example of how age doesn't equal ability to consent.

Fantasies_only said:

One might not have particularly strong genes in the family (DNA can be stretched just so far without breaking down).

Click to expand...

But of one does it can actually work out as I described, and as has been documented cf. my previous post.

Fantasies_only said:

By the title you would think it means cloning, but that's really just one part of it (stem cells), it's really gene manipulation, selecting exactly what traits you want your baby to have.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not referring to selective breeding. I'm only pointing out that inbreeding can have positive as well as negative genetic effects - even when inbreeding results from love and/or lust.

Nasty_Deeds said:

You are saying that it would actually be possible to create a superior human being through inbreeding. All you ever hear is people ranting about how incest causes birth defects, but if you were selective in who was allowed to reproduce, you could actually eliminate birth defects and other health problems. Sooo, maybe eugenics does have a place after all, very interesting.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. People have for centuries inbred animals to emphasize certain genetic traits in them, but every now and then a genetic mutation (which is random and not inherited) can occur which spoils the gene pool again, so to speak. Therefore what you describe is only possible if you employ either genetic screening or, as has been done with breeding animals, culling those with undesirable genetic traits. Culling is just another word for killing, and I am certainly not advocating that.

I am actually not advocating inbreeding either for several reasons, only pointing out that the genetic effects can just as well be positive as negative.

cybersexy_dk said:

People have for centuries inbred animals to emphasize certain genetic traits in them, but every now and then a genetic mutation (which is random and not inherited) can occur which spoils the gene pool again, so to speak. Therefore what you describe is only possible if you employ either genetic screening or, as has been done with breeding animals.

Click to expand...

True, people have bred animals emphasize certain genetic traits. For example: Cattle herds in the US are often procreated from a single bull and several cows which are genetic siblings. When bred for certain characteristics such as good health and growth, the herd always breeds true even though all of the cattle are closely related.

So, if the same was applied to human siblings, (and as you say, genetic screening was employed), it would be possible to create a healthier, more intelligent human being by breeding siblings who displayed certain desirable traits. In other words, in the context of the original poster's question, "Should consensual incest be legalized?”; if consensual incest were to be made legal, any cult or political movement could, (through selective breeding of siblings), recreate a race of, let’s say, blond haired, blue eyed white people who were physically and intellectually superior to other races.

I don't know, do you think legalizing consensual incest is a good idea?

Nasty_Deeds said:

if consensual incest were to be made legal, any cult or political movement could, (through selective breeding of siblings), recreate a race of, let’s say, blond haired, blue eyed white people who were physically and intellectually superior to other races.

Click to expand...

Uhmm, that can also be done non-incestously by breeding two unrelated people with each their own healthy genetic traits. Again, this is no argument against legalizing incest.

Nasty_Deeds said:

So, if the same was applied to human siblings, (and as you say, genetic screening was employed), it would be possible to create a healthier, more intelligent human being by breeding siblings who displayed certain desirable traits. In other words, in the context of the original poster's question, "Should consensual incest be legalized?”; if consensual incest were to be made legal, any cult or political movement could, (through selective breeding of siblings), recreate a race of, let’s say, blond haired, blue eyed white people who were physically and intellectually superior to other races.

I don't know, do you think legalizing consensual incest is a good idea?

Click to expand...

Hial Hitler!!

That's what people feared with genetic manipulation, but I don't think it would actually come to that.
Incest means sex within your own family and I don't know anybody with a family you have described let alone force inherited DNA and personality within.

Didn't Quakers figure all this out already?
I'm not saying that wouldn't work, I mean there is a better chance of it not working.

Why does adult incest always end up being about breeding? it seems to be a related fetish. I've noticed it on those rare occasions when I've read the stories.

Fantasies_only said:

Hial Hitler!!

Click to expand...

I like to throw those little tidbits in once in a while just for fun.

The human mind is scary isn't it.

OK if you insist, let’s pry this thread back on the rails.

In my opinion, the rules you lay out are too restrictive. If consensual incest were to become legal, (and presumably socially acceptable), it would be a sexual relationship like any other sexual relationship, and the many of the rules you lay out would become irrelevant or unenforceable.

1: Both or all parties must be 18 or older with an age gap of not more than 12 years (must wear condom).

Eighteen years of age is already the recognized age of adulthood or consent.
A twelve year difference in age rule, in almost every case would eliminate parent/adult child incest, which in effect would limit most incest to siblings.
“Must wear a condom”? What about two adult males or two adult women having sex? Why would a condom be mandatory in this case?


2: All sexual actions (masturbation excluded) must be consensual (nudity without touching genitals will not be considered sexual, unless penetration takes place).

A good common sense rule, but nudity without touching genitals is practiced by many nudist families now.


3: Nobody under 18 may watch incest unless permitted by parents.

In many places, no one under 18 can legally view sex or porn now with or without parental consent.


4: Only blood relatives may have a continued incestuous relationship, however non blood related family members may join in if invited.

If it is not a blood relative, it’s not incest. Sex with an in-law may be taboo, but it isn’t really incest. As far as non-blood related family members joining in, that wouldn’t much different than swinging.


5: Both immediate family (mother, father, and siblings) and relatives may watch if consented, but nobody outside the family may see family sex.

If it is legal and socially acceptable, Why? Some people like group sex and voyeurism.


6: Neither alcohol nor illegal drugs (including illegal narcotics that has been legalized) may be present during incest and must not be an outside influence beforehand.

Why would you forbid adults in any ongoing sexual relationship the pleasure of enjoying a drink together? These are adults, not children.


7: No more than three family members over 17 may have sex at the same time.

Why would you limit family sex to only three people? Some people enjoy group sex.


8: If consensual, it must be voted on where and when the action will take place.

Vote on sex? Do you know of anyone who has voted on when to have sex? Most people have sex when they are horny, and voting is the last thing they are thinking about.


9: Incest may not occur on public property, high traffic areas (during business or school hours), in a family area, or where children are likely to be.

It’s illegal to have sex in most of these places now.


10: All cell phones must be shut off and cameras, videocams, Webcams, spy cams, imaging devices, movie projectors, and television cameras must not be present.

Why? Some people love playing online sexually with their friends. If incest were legal and socially acceptable, why would it be different?


11: No family member may be forced, bribed, or blackmailed into any fetish the person is not willing to do (encouragement is allowed).

No one is allowed to force or blackmail someone into sex now. It’s called rape.


12: No person may brag about a sexual encounter with a family member to friends, neighbors, co-workers, classmates, etc.

People are going to talk, (and sometimes brag), about their sexual escapades, I don’t think this would be enforceable.


All and all, I’m not sure why incest isn't illegal now.