Adult Consensual Incest (how bad is it?)

[Fantasies_only]

Some of them sounded silly or unenforceable to me as well, but I was thinking of all the negative scenarios that could happen without them (including unwanted pregnancy).

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?

Eighteen is legal now I agree, I would just make it as an incest rule since incest isn't legal YET and shouldn't be in the same category as pedophilia or child molestation.
The 12 year gap does not exclude all parents, 'cause most people marry at 15 or 16.

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.

For a nudist family, nudity is normally thought of as every day life without it being sexual.
I added the masturbation line because I don't see why self touching should be called sexual.

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.

True, but what does that have to do with viewing incest rather than a cheating parent?

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.

You are forgetting about how adopted children are regarded by most parents and siblings.

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.

If it is legal, I don't see what's socially acceptable about voyeurism.
I'm not saying one can't have group sex, just not group incest.

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.

Age when drinking has nothing to do with it, you still get drunk with loss of inhibition.

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.

Again, I am not limiting sex, just incest.
You can have a full out orgy for all I care, but not more than 2 of those people can be part of your family.

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.

Yes, this sounded silly to me also, but if not applied, some of the rules will be broken.
Incest (as far as I know) doesn't normal act as regular sex on a whim.
I guess "vote" was just poor wording.
I meant discuss where and when before the act (similar to a call girl).

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.

Sex and incest will be put in two different categories if this is implemented.

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?

It can be problematic for sex to be shown on the Web or even filmed with a videocam.
It would be worse for two or more family members, remember even if something is legal, it can still be called immoral, such as gay marriage.

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.

No, it's only rape when at least an attempt of sex is made after told no.
A fetish is not the same as sex and is therefor called a non con activity.

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.

Actually this rule is a recommendation, like a restaurant customer washing his hands after he urinates.
I was thinking of the "sexting" fad when I wrote this.

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

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

There is a reason why most civilizations look at incest as a forbidden act. This has been very much the case throughout history. There are very small instances where it was acceptable. Mostly involving royalty. The very chance that a child could result is enough for me to keep it forbidden.

Inbreeding (Cut and paste)

Incest that results in offspring is a form of close inbreeding (reproduction between two individuals with a common ancestor). Inbreeding leads to a higher probability of congenital birth defects because it increases that proportion of zygotes that are homozygous, in particular for deleterious recessive alleles that produce such disorders. Because most such alleles are rare in populations, it is unlikely that two unrelated marriage partners will both be heterozygous carriers. However, because close relatives share a large fraction of their alleles, the probability that any such rare deleterious allele present in the common ancestor will be inherited from both related parents is increased dramatically with respect to non-inbred couples. Contrary to common belief, inbreeding does not in itself alter allele frequencies, but rather increases the relative proportion of homozygotes to heterozygotes. However, because the increased proportion of deleterious homozygotes exposes the allele to natural selection, in the long run its frequency decreases more rapidly in inbred population. In the short term, incestuous reproduction is expected to produce increases in spontaneous abortions of zygotes, perinatal deaths, and postnatal offspring with birth defects. HM Slatis showed a significant delay in time to first pregnancy in first-cousin marriages as compared with unrelated individuals in the same population. A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%. A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Very_Bad_Man, even before I read your post, I'd like to say I've reconsidered my position on this being legalized.
I won't even get into a child being born since sex doesn't technically have to occupancy incest.

Back in the mid to late 70s, men's bathhouses were all the craze.
Some were like spas at the Y, and some were like hot tubs.
Apparently one man had a bloody thigh while bathing with another man.
The blood ran down his leg and mixed with the water.
The second man liked swimming under water (for obvious reason) while the first man was washing.
The diluted blood was transmitted through the water and now he was an AIDS carrier.

This is the story that was seen on TV (didn't happen exactly like that).
The Haitian truth behind it is not very well known or not accepted, therefore this should not be legalized in case there's a small bit of truth to it.

However, once people are caught doing this, they shouldn't be labeled perverts for the rest of their lives.
Now 25, the girl who was caught having incest last year has to go on record as a sex offender as well as her father.
I don't think this is right as it was a consensual act, and they're both adults.
The state shouldn't care if the sex partners are related.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

However, once people are caught doing this, they shouldn't be labeled perverts for the rest of their lives.
Now 25, the girl who was caught having incest last year has to go on record as a sex offender as well as her father.
I don't think this is right as it was a consensual act, and they're both adults.
The state shouldn't care if the sex partners are related.

The reality of the matter is, no government agency of any kind has any business in anyone's bedroom. The reason being, there is no sex act, (no matter how normal, trivial or mundane), that you can't find someone who will tell it is wrong and want you punished for it. The desire to have sex is a basic human instinct, and when you start regulating basic human instincts, there is no freedom of any kind. In the real world, you cannot take away someone else's freedom without destroying your own.

 

[Galactic_Perv]

The reality of the matter is, no government agency of any kind has any business in anyone's bedroom. The reason being, there is no sex act, (no matter how normal, trivial or mundane), that you can't find someone who will tell it is wrong and want you punished for it. The desire to have sex is a basic human instinct, and when you start regulating basic human instincts, there is no freedom of any kind. In the real world, you cannot take away someone else's freedom without destroying your own.

You talk all that liberal crap all you want but throughout history most civilizations forbade incest and that was even among pagan civilizations. There is obvious reasons why.

 

[cybersexy_dk]

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.

Erotically it may be a fetisch to some, but in terms of legalizing incest the opponents almost always use birth defects as an argument - somehow assuming that sex always leads to pregnancy and incestous pregnancies always to birth defects. I'm just pointing out that in both cases they are very wrong in that assumption.

You talk all that liberal crap all you want but throughout history most civilizations forbade incest and that was even among pagan civilizations. There is obvious reasons why.

Throughout history most civilizations forbade homosexuality, and that was even among pagan civilizations. Is this an argument for forbidding homosexuality today?

Contrary to common belief, inbreeding does not in itself alter allele frequencies, but rather increases the relative proportion of homozygotes to heterozygotes. However, because the increased proportion of deleterious homozygotes exposes the allele to natural selection, in the long run its frequency decreases more rapidly in inbred population.

This is from your own reference to Wikipedia. Basically it states that so long as the inbreeding does not continue in successive generations there is relatively little increased risk of birth defects -and that the only real risk is that harmful genes are not illiminated through natural selection. However, as for the latter the harmful genes can instead be eliminated through genetic screening (which already happens today when many unrelated couples are expecting).

Referring to Wikipedia myself:

"Typical inbreeding percentages are as follows, assuming no previous inbreeding between any parents:[dubious – discuss]

Father/daughter, mother/son or brother/sister → 25%
Grandfather/granddaughter or grandmother/grandson → 12.5%
Half-brother/half-sister → 12.5%
Uncle/niece or aunt/nephew → 12.5%
Great-grandfather/great-granddaughter or great-grandmother/great-grandson → 6.25%
Half-uncle/niece or half-aunt/nephew → 6.25%
First cousins → 6.25%
First cousins once removed or half-first cousins → 3.125%
Second cousins or first cousins twice removed → 1.5625%
Second cousins once removed or half-second cousins → 0.78125%

An inbreeding calculation may be used to determine the general genetic distance among relatives by multiplying by two, because any progeny would have a 1 in 2 risk of actually inheriting the identical alleles from both parents.

For instance, the parent/child or sibling/sibling relationships have 50% identical genetics.

NOTE: For siblings, the degree of genetic relationship is not an automatic 50% as it is with parents and their children, but a range from 100% at one extreme, as in the case of identical twins (who obviously cannot mate as they are the same sex), to an exceedingly unlikely 0%. In other words, siblings share an average of 50% of their genes, but unlike the 50% ratio between parents and children, the actual ratio between siblings in any given case can vary."

This confirms what I've stated earlier, that even brother/sister couples on average have a 75% chance of not passing on their identical genes (alleles) to their children. The note at the bottom even specifies that in individual cases that chance can be both much higher and much lower, but that is also the case for non-related couples.

By the way, don't forget that the percentages above are not the chances of passing on harmful genes, but simply the chances of passing on identical genes. These can be both harmful and beneficial, so the chance of passing on harmful genes is in general actually lower than the percentages above.

Eighteen years of age is already the recognized age of adulthood or consent.

Far from everywhere. In my country the age of consent is 15 years, and in some countries even less. There are even countries in which the age of consent is more than 18 years.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

You talk all that liberal crap all you want but throughout history most civilizations forbade incest and that was even among pagan civilizations. There is obvious reasons why.

The statement was conservative, not liberal, and apparently you know little about history, and even less about religion. Throughout history, marriage between first cousins has been quite common, and today, sex between first cousins is considered incest.

 

[Hans101]

Meanwhile people who actually are involved in an incestuous relationship aren't waiting around for the approval of others.

Arguments for and against incest between consenting adults are completely academic. You might as well argue about the legality of masturbation. Private acts that aren't revealed to others are impossible to regulate.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Meanwhile people who actually are involved in an incestuous relationship aren't waiting around for the approval of others.

Arguments for and against incest between consenting adults are completely academic. You might as well argue about the legality of masturbation. Private acts that aren't revealed to others are impossible to regulate.

It is a private act, which is why it's compared to gay marriage, but there is potential physical and traumatic risk that must be considered first.
Including unwanted pregnancy, a traumatic effect in the growth of the child, genetic mutations, etc.

A study about public masturbation/teaching technique was already done, so your example wasn't too far off.
I'd rather not go into details.

 

[cybersexy_dk]

Meanwhile people who actually are involved in an incestuous relationship aren't waiting around for the approval of others.

Arguments for and against incest between consenting adults are completely academic. You might as well argue about the legality of masturbation. Private acts that aren't revealed to others are impossible to regulate.

Some people are not comfortable with having to hide who they are in a romantic or even sexual relationship with. They want the same freedom as others to express their love and desire for each other whenever they want and even in public. Today they cannot. I think that's reason enough to discuss the legality of incest.

It is a private act, which is why it's compared to gay marriage, but there is potential physical and traumatic risk that must be considered first.
Including unwanted pregnancy, a traumatic effect in the growth of the child, genetic mutations, etc.

Every single sexual relationship has those risks, so that is no argument for specifically restricting incestous relationships.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

A thought about birth defects resulting from incestuous pregnancies. Are there really enough children produced from incestuous relationships to do any kind of comprehensive study? If so, incest must be more common than thought.

 

[Hans101]

Inbreeding is a distinct issue. Close relatives should not have children together. The empirical evidence that inbreeding is harmful and dangerous is readily available to anyone willing to read about it. If effective contraceptives were not available, then consensual adult incest would be a very bad idea. But avoiding pregnancy is easy.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Inbreeding is a distinct issue. Close relatives should not have children together. The empirical evidence that inbreeding is harmful and dangerous is readily available to anyone willing to read about it. If effective contraceptives were not available, then consensual adult incest would be a very bad idea. But avoiding pregnancy is easy.

Usually I am taking jabs at people just for fun, but this isn’t one of those times, so I don’t mean any offense by my question.

You can read anything you want on the internet about any subject, including birth defects from incest, but where are the controlled, scientific studies? I would like to see a study done by reputable medical scientists or researchers, working with a familiar and reputable research organization like a university. The study should be of significant size and done in a controlled environment with one or more control groups of significant size. Any control group of children would have to come from the same environment as the children being studied.

My point is, I’m not sure there are enough known children born of incest to create such a study. Children born of incest seem to be relatively rare, and spread out across the world. Such children would not only have to be available to researchers, but also any environmental or medical issues that might also cause birth defects would have to be available for study. Because incest is such a taboo, most children born of incest are hidden from public knowledge, so how would anyone go about creating a comprehensive study of incest birth defects?

Evidence readily available where? If anyone has a link to a study of incest birth defects, done by a familiar and reputable research group, please post it. Don't post a link by someone creating study results for their own motives, the study has to be done by someone with a reputable background in research.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Usually I am taking jabs at people just for fun, but this isn’t one of those times, so I don’t mean any offense by my question.

You can read anything you want on the internet about any subject, including birth defects from incest, but where are the controlled, scientific studies? I would like to see a study done by reputable medical scientists or researchers, working with a familiar and reputable research organization like a university. The study should be of significant size and done in a controlled environment with one or more control groups of significant size. Any control group of children would have to come from the same environment as the children being studied.

My point is, I’m not sure there are enough known children born of incest to create such a study. Children born of incest seem to be relatively rare, and spread out across the world. Such children would not only have to be available to researchers, but also any environmental or medical issues that might also cause birth defects would have to be available for study. Because incest is such a taboo, most children born of incest are hidden from public knowledge, so how would anyone go about creating a comprehensive study of incest birth defects?

Evidence readily available where? If anyone has a link to a study of incest birth defects, done by a familiar and reputable research group, please post it. Don't post a link by someone creating study results for their own motives, the study has to be done by someone with a reputable background in research.

It's already legal in Japan and Sweden, so you may find your study there.

The thing about the Japanese is normal intercourse isn't usually what's wanted.
It's usually just a blow job or annul sex, which a baby can't be born from.
Although legal in Sweden, this is not a normal practice in that country (moved up AOC from 12 to 14).

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

It's already legal in Japan and Sweden, so you may find your study there.

The thing about the Japanese is normal intercourse isn't usually what's wanted.
It's usually just a blow job or annul sex, which a baby can't be born from.
Although legal in Sweden, this is not a normal practice in that country (moved up AOC from 12 to 14).

My point is: I don’t see any evidence there has ever been a legitimate or comprehensive study done on birth defects resulting from incestuous pregnancies. Before anyone can say incest causes birth defects or mutations, there has to be proof that incestuous pregnancies produce substantially more birth defects than non-incestuous pregnancies. It is a fact of life that birth defects can happen in any pregnancy, but where is the proof that incestuous pregnancies have a significantly higher rate of birth defects than non-incestuous pregnancies?

I am not saying that children born of incest don’t have a higher rate of birth defects, but I want to see the proof.

 

[cybersexy_dk]

I am not saying that children born of incest don’t have a higher rate of birth defects, but I want to see the proof.

There is more data on this subject than you can probably imagine as animal breeders have employed inbreeding for milennia to enhance positive genetic traits and in the process culled the offspring with negative genetic traits. Human genetic heredity is no different, so there is really no need to do human studies on the subject to draw conclusions about human inbreeding.

The facts are on the table. Most people just have a psychological aversion to incest (called the Westermack effect) and therefore refuse to acknowledge them and will readily believe any horror-story about massive birth-defect frequencies.

That being said, I am NOT advocating human inbreeding. However, my reasons are not genetic, as the genetic risks of inbreeding are not necessarily very big cf. my previous posts. My objection to inbreeding is primarily social.

Using genetics as an argument against inbreeding is in my view an ill-informed own-goal which plays right into the hands of people who DO advocate human inbreeding.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Here's something interesting:
Microarray Analysis Can Identify Unsuspected Incest

 

[Hans101]

Usually I am taking jabs at people just for fun, but this isn’t one of those times, so I don’t mean any offense by my question.

You can read anything you want on the internet about any subject, including birth defects from incest, but where are the controlled, scientific studies? I would like to see a study done by reputable medical scientists or researchers, working with a familiar and reputable research organization like a university. The study should be of significant size and done in a controlled environment with one or more control groups of significant size. Any control group of children would have to come from the same environment as the children being studied.

My point is, I’m not sure there are enough known children born of incest to create such a study. Children born of incest seem to be relatively rare, and spread out across the world. Such children would not only have to be available to researchers, but also any environmental or medical issues that might also cause birth defects would have to be available for study. Because incest is such a taboo, most children born of incest are hidden from public knowledge, so how would anyone go about creating a comprehensive study of incest birth defects?

Evidence readily available where? If anyone has a link to a study of incest birth defects, done by a familiar and reputable research group, please post it. Don't post a link by someone creating study results for their own motives, the study has to be done by someone with a reputable background in research.

If you actually had any interest in such things you'd be looking for them yourself instead of demanding that someone else be your unpaid RA.

 

[Hans101]

My point is: I don’t see any evidence there has ever been a legitimate or comprehensive study done on birth defects resulting from incestuous pregnancies. Before anyone can say incest causes birth defects or mutations, there has to be proof that incestuous pregnancies produce substantially more birth defects than non-incestuous pregnancies. It is a fact of life that birth defects can happen in any pregnancy, but where is the proof that incestuous pregnancies have a significantly higher rate of birth defects than non-incestuous pregnancies?

I am not saying that children born of incest don’t have a higher rate of birth defects, but I want to see the proof.

There is plenty of evidence that you are carefully doing your very best to not look at by pretending that it is our job to find it for you. We're not librarians.

 

[hung_nylon_lover570]

Taboo yes but very hot if everyone is consensual

It is part of life everyone is scared to talk about. Love is human nature and if it happens to be family so be it. live and let live, If you are 18 and sane who cares who you are sexually involed with, if it feels good do it.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

If you actually had any interest in such things you'd be looking for them yourself instead of demanding that someone else be your unpaid RA.

A typical and expected response from someone who has no evidence to back up apocryphal claims.

There is plenty of evidence that you are carefully doing your very best to not look at by pretending that it is our job to find it for you. We're not librarians.

If there is no reliable research to prove children born of incest have a higher rate of birth defects than children born of non-incestuous pregnancies, then my point is proven. It is up to you, (and others), to disprove my supposition.

Note: If you don't understand the big words, apocryphal means questionable.

 

[cybersexy_dk]

If there is no reliable research to prove children born of incest have a higher rate of birth defects than children born of non-incestuous pregnancies, then my point is proven.

Actually an absence of proof proves nothing, so it can hardly prove your point either.

However, as I've already stated there is an abundance of evidence from milennia of animal inbreeding.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Actually an absence of proof proves nothing, so it can hardly prove your point either.

However, as I've already stated there is an abundance of evidence from milennia of animal inbreeding.

Animal studies are not enough. Humans can make a conscious decision with whom the wish to have children, and animals will breed with any female in heat. Even though genetically we are closely related to other mammals on this planet, there is a big difference between humans and animals.

Your reference to animal studies are little more than a futile attempt to muster evidence for a hypothesis for which there is no proof.

 

[cybersexy_dk]

Animal studies are not enough. Humans can make a conscious decision with whom the wish to have children, and animals will breed with any female in heat. Even though genetically we are closely related to other mammals on this planet, there is a big difference between humans and animals.

Your reference to animal studies are little more than a futile attempt to muster evidence for a hypothesis for which there is no proof.

I was referring to selective breeding as performed in the agricultural sector, which in modern times has involved a lot of genetic research.

There is no big difference between human breeding and the breeding of other mammals - at least not where genetics are concerned. To state otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

I was referring to selective breeding as performed in the agricultural sector.

There is no big difference between human breeding and the breeding of other mammals - at least not where genetics are concerned. To state otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous.

Ok, no problem. You can stick with breeding animals if you like, but I prefer women myself.

But you do come back to see us when you get some real facts about human beings.

P.S. How big is your herd anyway?