Incest question

[CindyCD478]

Why do so many people have problems with sexual relationships between adult family members? What goes on between consenting adults shouldn't be any one elses business. For example, a man in his early 40's gets divorced and loses his house. He moves in with his widowed mother who is in her late 50's. One day she happens to walk past his open door and sees him looking at porn and stroking himself. At first she just walks away, but then she has a second thought and goes back and gives him a "helping hand". Eventually it leads to more and they end up sharing a bed. What is the harm in it? The same could be said if it were father and daughter, or brother and sister. They are all adults. no problem.

 

[bluesbreaker_69]

It is only when one member of the family gets forced to indulge is it beyond acceptable limits. I have enjoyed much family fun

 

[j3nny01]

I guess technically there is no 'harm.' I have to confess I find it kind of gross, but everyone's got their limits.
The only real issue I would have (again given that we are talking about consenting adults), is that there be no offspring from an incestuous relationship. There are health risks posed to the children on consanguineous parents.

 

[Ocean33]

Why do so many people have problems with sexual relationships between adult family members? What goes on between consenting adults shouldn't be any one elses business. For example, a man in his early 40's gets divorced and loses his house. He moves in with his widowed mother who is in her late 50's. One day she happens to walk past his open door and sees him looking at porn and stroking himself. At first she just walks away, but then she has a second thought and goes back and gives him a "helping hand". Eventually it leads to more and they end up sharing a bed. What is the harm in it? The same could be said if it were father and daughter, or brother and sister. They are all adults. no problem.

You make a fair point but in our society sex between people who are related is considered wrong and immoral

 

[HayleyLuvsSex]

Because it's fucking weird. I have absolutely no sexual attraction to any family member. From a biblical standpoint, a child conceived by two family members is far more likely to have birth defects.

Sorry, but I'll always think it is incredibly strange.

 

[ThorsHammer7]

I've long had a crush on my Aunt, my mom's younger sister. I don't know if I would ever act on it, but I have felt a stirring.

 

[headdoctor]

I guess technically there is no 'harm.' I have to confess I find it kind of gross, but everyone's got their limits.
The only real issue I would have (again given that we are talking about consenting adults), is that there be no offspring from an incestuous relationship. There are health risks posed to the children on consanguineous parents.

j3nny is right, and not only about health risks: emotional (and legal) risks as well. Many studies have suggested that even consenting adult relationships can be fraught, as is GSA. And it may be tautological but the effect is real: such relationships are considered taboo or morally wrong by most sociologists, theologians, politicians, ethicists, psychologists, etc, and this condemnation indeed can have significant consequences for those who engage in it. Perhaps over time culture will change its attitudes, and perhaps that would be a good thing.

Don't misunderstand me: I enjoy family fantasies, and that cultural condemnation (the "forbidden" aspect) can be part of the eroticism. But we might as well be honest about the complex realities.

 

[Hans101]

Incest aversion is instinctive and is the method that has evolved in humans to avoid inbreeding.

Might as well ask why people find the odor of rotten garbage unpleasant.

 

[VampirTARA]

In the U.S. And a study in the Journal of Genetic Counseling in 2002 showed that children of incest have only about a 2-3% higher riskof birth defects than normal—a number comparable to the defects in a child born of a 41-year-old woman as opposed to 30 years of age. the percentage rates are higher for people that smoke , drink alcohol and do illicit drugs giving birth to children.

But, Incest laws in this country have largely religious origins. In England, incest was punishable only in ecclesiastical courts, which ostensibly applied the law of Leviticus prohibiting persons more closely related than fourth cousins to marry. This ban applied equally to relations by blood and by marriage, based on the canonical maxim that husband and wife were one, and therefore equally related to each other's kin.

American jurisdictions departed from English law by declaring incest a crime, as well as a basis for invalidating marriage. However, many states only punished relationships between first cousins and closer, and others only punished relationships of consanguinity, but not affinity ....... if you're a Christian, if it were not for incest we would not be here, remember Adam and Eve then Noah and the Ark . what do you think they did to populate the earth.

 

[craiger58]

I guess technically there is no 'harm.' I have to confess I find it kind of gross, but everyone's got their limits.
The only real issue I would have (again given that we are talking about consenting adults), is that there be no offspring from an incestuous relationship. There are health risks posed to the children on consanguineous parents.

Who else thinks it's hot that she used "consanguineous" in a sentence?

 

[CindyCD478]

It is only when one member of the family gets forced to indulge is it beyond acceptable limits. I have enjoyed much family fun

I would never advocate forcing anyone, family member or not to have sex, but to me sex for fun is just that, fun, no matter who it is with.

 

[IceyBlue]

From a biblical standpoint, a child conceived by two family members is far more likely to have birth defects.

Actually, it's only in the bible that happens to be true. LOL.

In reality the 'risk' is no greater than the use of most prescription (and lots of OTC) medicines, alcohol, tobacco or a long list of other things.

On the other hand, there is that old wives tale about the children of incest being simpletons. After all, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein were both the result of married family members.

You wouldn't want too many children turning out like THAT now would you?

 

[Hans101]

Darwin and Einstein were the children of distant cousins, not siblings.

The increased risk of genetic defects from inbreeding is not linear, but exponential.

 

[IceyBlue]

Darwin and Einstein were the children of distant cousins, not siblings.

Ummmm, in a word, no.


Einstein's cousin / wife Elsa was actually related to Albert on both sides of his family.

Albert's mother and Elsa's mother were sisters, so Elsa she was a first cousin.

Over and above that Albert's father and Elsa's father were also cousins.

 

[CindyCD478]

Ummmm, in a word, no.


Einstein's cousin / wife Elsa was actually related to Albert on both sides of his family.

Albert's mother and Elsa's mother were sisters, so Elsa she was a first cousin.

Over and above that Albert's father and Elsa's father were also cousins.

Wow, maybe our son and daughter can produce a genius.

 

[IceyBlue]

Wow, maybe our son and daughter can produce a genius.

My cousin / wife and I are both pretty clever.

It's been a long-standing family joke that we're "fucking geniuses, literally".

 

[Ocean33]

Because it's fucking weird. I have absolutely no sexual attraction to any family member. From a biblical standpoint, a child conceived by two family members is far more likely to have birth defects.

Sorry, but I'll always think it is incredibly strange.

That is also another valid point. Most people don't have a sexual attraction to members of their family and if they did they wouldn't act on it

 

[Green_Knight]

In the U.S. And a study in the Journal of Genetic Counseling in 2002 showed that children of incest have only about a 2-3% higher risk of birth defects than normal—a number comparable to the defects in a child born of a 41-year-old woman as opposed to 30 years of age. the percentage rates are higher for people that smoke, drink alcohol and do illicit drugs giving birth to children.

If the paper you mention is that by Bennett et al, it showed no such thing. By all means use scientific papers to further the debate, but you should not twist what they say to suit your own case.

The paper was not a study of the children of incest. Its purpose was to make to make recommendations for health care professionals who provide genetic counselling and screening to consanguineous couples and their offspring, which is a very different thing. It also makes a clear distinction between incestuous and consanguineous relationships; for practical purposes, it defines the latter as biologic second cousins or closer. Very few people would regard second-cousin relationships as incestuous and sex between first-cousins is not regarded as incestuous in most of the world – just in some of the more-backward US states and Zimbabwe. (Some US states bar marriage but not sex between first cousins.) It defines incest as between biological first-degree relatives (ie father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister). It points out that there is no published data on the number of offspring produced from incestuous unions, which means that it is almost impossible for any conclusions about them to be statistically valid. It says that the prevalence of incest is difficult to establish, and is likely to be under-reported. Data on incest is mostly gathered from retrospective studies of child sexual abuse and may include abuse by non-biological relatives.

The paper does review (critically and unfavourably) a number of studies that have been published in the past but it does not support the conclusions you voice. On the contrary, it states that:

The offspring of consanguineous unions may be at increased risk for genetic disorders because of the expression of autosomal recessive gene mutations inherited from a common ancestor. The closer the biological relationship between parents, the greater is the probability that their offspring will inherit identical copies of one or more detrimental recessive genes.

and that:

Offspring of consanguineous unions may also be at increased risk for disorders of multifactorial or complex inheritance. However, well-controlled studies evaluating the effect of consanguinity on multifactorial diseases of childhood and adulthood have not been conducted. The studies to date are not conclusive as to whether consanguinity increases the risk for multifactorial disorders.

It continues:

Few studies document the actual risks to the offspring of consanguineous unions. The risks quoted for birth defects and mental retardation are often based on studies of non-Western populations where consanguineous unions are common, and they may not be applicable to consanguineous unions in the United States and Canada... Furthermore, in all such studies, the criteria for what is considered a significant medical problem in offspring are not standardized.

I would add that there are also variations in the life period covered by the studies – some are limited to problems that arise or become obvious during the first year of life only.

While bearing these limitations in mind, the paper notes from these studies that there is an increased risk for a significant birth defect in offspring of a first-cousin union of between 1.7 and 2.8% above the risk of the general population risk. This is presumably the figure you quote but it is for first-cousins, not incestuous unions. It also says that for first cousins there is an estimated 4.4% risk for pre-reproductive mortality (to median age of 10 years) above that of the background population risk.

As far as first-degree (incestuous) relationships are concerned, the paper says that 'given the almost universal cross-cultural stigma, social disapproval, and legal sanctions to incestuous unions, there is a paucity of data regarding adverse medical outcomes in the offspring of incestuous unions. Published studies are fraught with significant ascertainment biases.' Its best estimate from the few limited studies that have been carried out is that 'the excess level of death and severe defect in the off-spring of incestuous unions (a proportion of which may have been non-genetic in origin) was 31.4%.' This is 10 times the maximum figure you have chosen to quote.

An alternative method of analysis, which extrapolates the risks observed in first cousin unions to calculate mortality and morbidity associated with incest, (and which the paper admits may involve inaccurate assumptions, particularly for disorders with complex inheritance factors) predicts an excess death rate of approximately 17.6% for offspring of incestuous unions and a risk of significant birth defects of 6.8–11.2% above the population background. Once again, these figures are far higher than those you quote.

You also try to make light of the increased risks arising from an incestuous relationship by comparing them with those of a 41-year-old woman or people who smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs. That is not a valid approach – you can only compare like with like. On that basis, what is certain is that the cumulative risks facing an incestuous offspring of a 41-year old woman or someone who smokes, drinks or takes drugs will be far higher than the figures above suggest.

 

[bunny4med]

I guess technically there is no 'harm.' I have to confess I find it kind of gross, but everyone's got their limits.
The only real issue I would have (again given that we are talking about consenting adults), is that there be no offspring from an incestuous relationship. There are health risks posed to the children on consanguineous parents.

been in a relationship for over 14 years with my brother that was started when we were in college. we are both doctors and don't plan on having children. mainly for the fact that are also married to our jobs and would not be able to devote the time that would be needed to raise the child.

Because it's fucking weird. I have absolutely no sexual attraction to any family member. From a biblical standpoint, a child conceived by two family members is far more likely to have birth defects.

Sorry, but I'll always think it is incredibly strange.

i find any biblical standpoint incredibly strange. a book written by men to control a population for monetary and power. no rights to women, much less the fairy tales that are perceived as fact. don't even get me started on the old testament.

j3nny is right, and not only about health risks: emotional (and legal) risks as well. Many studies have suggested that even consenting adult relationships can be fraught, as is GSA. And it may be tautological but the effect is real: such relationships are considered taboo or morally wrong by most sociologists, theologians, politicians, ethicists, psychologists, etc, and this condemnation indeed can have significant consequences for those who engage in it. Perhaps over time culture will change its attitudes, and perhaps that would be a good thing.

Don't misunderstand me: I enjoy family fantasies, and that cultural condemnation (the "forbidden" aspect) can be part of the eroticism. But we might as well be honest about the complex realities.

i don't live a forbidden fantasy. all of the ologists and god forbid politicians that are mentioned are people who insist on telling other people how they should live their lives relative to someone elses made up norms and judgments. norms and judgments change from decade to decade and century to century. the only way attitudes will change will be the end of organised religion. love thy neighbor should be the only creed to live by, not gathering every seven days in inclusive pacts to exclude people that are not judged worthy. if people only minded their own business and worried about living their own lives to the fullest, instead of butting in other peoples business and telling them they are doing it wrong.

cultural condemnation is not part of the "forbidden" aspect. moving across the country, cutting off ties to everyone you know and living a fairly secretive life is not part of the allure of the relationship. it is sharing a love that most people will never get to experience in their lifetime that is the allure.

 

[Freebird49]

Why do so many people have problems with sexual relationships between adult family members? What goes on between consenting adults shouldn't be any one elses business. For example, a man in his early 40's gets divorced and loses his house. He moves in with his widowed mother who is in her late 50's. One day she happens to walk past his open door and sees him looking at porn and stroking himself. At first she just walks away, but then she has a second thought and goes back and gives him a "helping hand". Eventually it leads to more and they end up sharing a bed. What is the harm in it? The same could be said if it were father and daughter, or brother and sister. They are all adults. no problem.

I think the reason everyone finds it alluring is that it is so close yet so far. I've never had a sister but when I was a teenager a buddy of mine obsessed over his sister. He never did anything about it but he saw her naked numerous times.

 

[VampirTARA]

the subject of incest is one that can be debated until the skies fall, with conflicting research studies geared to the point of view of the researcher. if you want to talk biblically the Bible contradicts itself. God supposedly condemns incest in it, but creates scenarios where it must take place, such as Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark just to name a few. I believe it is new ones right to impose their views on two consenting adults, no matter what we choose to do, as a human race we shall survive.....

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Actually, it's only in the bible that happens to be true. LOL.

In reality the 'risk' is no greater than the use of most prescription (and lots of OTC) medicines, alcohol, tobacco or a long list of other things.

On the other hand, there is that old wives tale about the children of incest being simpletons. After all, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein were both the result of married family members.

You wouldn't want too many children turning out like THAT now would you?

if they were legally married, it isn't incest:

sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.

 

[photobuff56]

A couple of years ago I read an article in a newspaper, there were 2 college kids from south Africa who met and started dating. They began having sec and the young girl got pregnant and they decided to marry and where very much in love. They decided it was time to meet each others parents both parents where single and divorced they picked a meeting place and time and when they showed up the parents were in shock. You see neither child new their divorced parent because the we're young when they divorced. It turns out they were brother and sister, what are the odds right. I think the laws in south Africa prohibit insestous marriages so they were forced to go their separate ways. I think the young women was going to keep the baby, pretty sad of you ask me.

 

[Green_Knight]

A couple of years ago I read an article in a newspaper, there were 2 college kids from south Africa who met and started dating. They began having sec and the young girl got pregnant and they decided to marry and where very much in love. They decided it was time to meet each others parents both parents where single and divorced they picked a meeting place and time and when they showed up the parents were in shock. You see neither child new their divorced parent because the we're young when they divorced. It turns out they were brother and sister, what are the odds right. I think the laws in south Africa prohibit insestous marriages so they were forced to go their separate ways. I think the young women was going to keep the baby, pretty sad of you ask me.

What is almost as sad is that the parents kept the two siblings from knowing each other for all that time.

 

[CindyCD478]

A couple of years ago I read an article in a newspaper, there were 2 college kids from south Africa who met and started dating. They began having sec and the young girl got pregnant and they decided to marry and where very much in love. They decided it was time to meet each others parents both parents where single and divorced they picked a meeting place and time and when they showed up the parents were in shock. You see neither child new their divorced parent because the we're young when they divorced. It turns out they were brother and sister, what are the odds right. I think the laws in south Africa prohibit insestous marriages so they were forced to go their separate ways. I think the young women was going to keep the baby, pretty sad of you ask me.

They should have just continued to live together without getting married so the baby would have both parents.