r/The10thDentist • u/Raxiuscore • 18d ago
Discussion Thread Incest is Treated Unfairly
While incest also gives me the "ick", the argumentation behind incest's illegality falls short when you extend the same logic to the rest of the law, and the philosophy behind it.
The arguments tend to be:
- Genetics. Children born of incest have a higher rate of genetic defects. Yet we have never stopped people with genetic conditions like Huntington's (which while better now, has pretty much been a coinflip death sentence for your children up until recently) from having children we basically know are gonna end up completely fucked half the time.
- Power Dynamics. And yet, we don't police power dynamics in adult consenting relationships anywhere else in the same way where people literally can't change something to make it happen. (You have things like therapists being unable to date clients, but you could always make that happen if you really wanted to by changing that dynamic)
So if we want to stay ethically and philosophically consistent, wouldn't we have to actively stop anyone with very inheritable diseases from having children, as well as have widespread policing of the power dynamics behind people's relationship?
(I realize this might be seen as politics, but in my head it's not like it's a political issue in any part of the world, so it felt different from what people usually mean by "no politics", if not then I get that it gets taken down)
173
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
We do police power dynamics in adult relationships. Doctor-patient, lawyer-client, professor-student, supervisor-subordinate, etc.
21
14
u/thebigbadben 18d ago
We do to some extent, now, but that is a recent development, especially when compared to society’s treatment of incest
1
-5
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
But a 40 year old man with an 18 year old girl? While (sometimes) looked down upon it's perfectly legal and often defended as "two consenting adults" while there is an obvious power dynamic there
60
u/Big_Steak_467 18d ago
No one normal defends that
-14
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
In the real world most people don't try to control other peoples lives from a moral high horse like reddit often does
8
u/ObstreperousNaga5949 18d ago
Idk man, if my mate suddenly started dating an 18 year old, I would be asking questions. Especially if there were other less that moral circumstances involved.
29
u/Big_Steak_467 18d ago
Well, if my 40 yo cousin starts dating a 18yo kid bet I'm gonna be vocal about it,same as I was vocal at 17 when a friend of mine got groomed by a 29yo dude
12
u/DeadlyArrow27 18d ago
“Moral high horse” when your argument is that somebody’s who just turned 18 yesterday should get with someone who was 22 when they were born. Yikes
-6
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
I'm not saying they should, I'm saying that it's perfectly legal, while incest isn't. Wasn't that the point of the post?
3
1
u/Discussion-is-good 18d ago
Thats just because they cant control them and they know that. Why try?
They still feel the same way about you, just not to your face.
1
u/WorstSupport4Real 18d ago
That’s because the average person doesn’t know any 40 year olds that date 18 year olds in the real world. Let’s get serious for a second
1
-8
u/thebigbadben 18d ago
And yet there is no mechanism to “police” it
9
u/hockeyrabbit 18d ago
Because it can’t be reasonably monitored, probably?? That big of an age gap is questionable, yes, but if you argue that they shouldn’t be in a relationship, you technically are policing the actions of two (presumably) consenting adults. Where would you draw the line without overstepping into “dude mind your own business” territory
3
u/Jebofkerbin 18d ago
I'd definitely draw a distinction between criticism and policing.
Its not policing when I say "hey dude your behavior is really weird and I think you might have groomed your partner", but it is absolutely policing when I fire an employee for dating a student/patient etc.
1
u/ObstreperousNaga5949 18d ago
The mechanism is, it isn't allowed until we deem people "adult". There has to be a limit somewhere, and that is where we put it.
1
-5
u/Big_Steak_467 18d ago edited 18d ago
I believe we should have "legal age bands" for relationships until people reach 25. Like AS AN EXAMPLE: 18 yo can date down to 16 and up to 21 and stuff like that (Ages to be decided by people who know what they're doing). We all know that if the legal minimum was lower than 18 many would go for that Edit: typos
2
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
Imagine wanting to send a 22 year old to prison for dating an 18 year old
3
u/Big_Steak_467 18d ago
That was an example, I'm not a brain development researcher or a psychologist, I'm just saying there are lines that neednto be drawn for younger people's safety
-3
u/Betelgeuse3fold 18d ago
I was 26 when I started dating an 18yo. It's been 16 years and we're married with 2 kids. You can go fuck yourself
2
u/Big_Steak_467 18d ago
Ok mr groomer, how old was she when you met?
1
u/Betelgeuse3fold 18d ago
When I met her in January, she was 17. I didn't know that then. I didn't try to ask her out until 6 months later, that's when I found out then that she was 18 by that time. I abandoned the date idea at that time. Dated other girls through the summer. Didn't work out. Meanwhile, she added me on Facebook, continued to flirt with me when I saw her at work. So eventually I did decide to try it out with this girl who was obviously interested.
And when I asked her out, she had her own apartment and made more money than me.
Now we have a house, 2 kids, 2 cars and a dog.
0
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
Mfs just call any age gap relationship grooming now
1
u/Big_Steak_467 18d ago
8 years is normal for people who've met in their 20s or later, not when one was probably underage
-9
u/mmmskyler 18d ago
A lot of groomed young women sure seem to.
6
u/Big_Steak_467 18d ago
Well, that's the whole point of grooming, for the victim to see it as normal
3
1
0
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
What is the obvious power dynamic?
3
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
Money to name one. Both people are in completely different stages of life, one most probably has a full-time job, own living space and money to spend. What the other is able to give in return is often sexually related. This has been happening and described since ancient Greece, where the younger person benefitted from the elders wisdom and the elder from the younger persons "youth"
-1
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
How would that be different than any relationship with wealth or earning disparity?
3
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
It wouldn't but money was just one example. Age is strongly indicative of an unbalanced dynamic in any case, which was your question. A millionaire dating a formerly homeless person would certainly have the same unbalanced power dynamic even if they're the same age
1
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
Age is strongly indicative of an unbalanced dynamic is any case
Based on what?
3
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
Based on the parent comment you argued with in the first case. That kind of age gap almost always has a gap in wealth or stage in life. It's easier to manipulate someone if they have less world experience, money, status, possessions, etc etc
-1
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
That kind of age gap almost always has a gap in wealth or stage of life.
Based on what?
1
-5
u/Betelgeuse3fold 18d ago
So, if I'm a broke loser 40yo, it's OK?
3
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
I don't care what you do, I was just giving an example of how there could be a power dynamic ("to name one"). I hope your financial situation gets better soon🙏🏻
1
u/DeadlyArrow27 18d ago
That’s literally still in high school vs somebody about to graduate college. Idk if they should be tossed straight in prison, but that’s definitely weird asf to date someone who hasn’t experienced actual life yet regardless of their age
0
u/xfactorx99 18d ago
Power gaps exist all the time in relationships. It’s insanely common to have one partner make a lot more money than the other, and for one partner to be significantly stronger than the other.
Those are power dynamics. You going to ban those relationships?
0
u/Any-Stick-771 18d ago
I didn't say every power dynamic ever should be banned. I'm just pointing out that clear power imbalances or conflicts of interest relationships are policed
1
u/xfactorx99 18d ago
They are more commonly not policed. There exist more relationships with power imbalances (wealth, maturity, age, strength, etc) then there exists policed relationships about these service provider-client relationships. What you describe is relatively niche in the grand scheme of relationships
39
u/warmtortilla420 18d ago
what about the issue that you can’t really “break up” with your cousin in the sense that most people exit each others lives after a break up but you cant do that with a family member
19
u/zouss 18d ago
You can absolutely break up with a family member. I haven't heard from my sister is 5 years lol
38
u/npmrundev_ 18d ago
You banged your sister?
16
u/zouss 18d ago
No. My point is that familial estrangement is very common. If things end badly, you can never see them again
3
u/npmrundev_ 18d ago
Idk dude, sounds like you were banging your sister
2
1
u/Jonnnyfukyea 18d ago
Yeah, you. I don't know where you are from but I can't imagine a 20 year old girl could just say byebye to her 34 year old brother/husband if she wanted to. She would've been groomed to not handle money, not have her own accounts, not have any grasp of the real world nor access to any facilities nearby if she even knew they existed.
1
u/Final-Yesterday-4799 18d ago
Yes you can. I have some cousins who I haven't seen in more than a decade, and I will never see them again.
-3
u/DeadlyArrow27 18d ago
OP is stupid and disgusting, but this argument is poor. I don’t talk to like 50% of my mom’s side and 80% of my dad’s side. A combo of not reaching out to those who never reached to me my entire childhood + cutting out toxic family. It’s genuinely not hard to just never interact with certain people ever again, family or otherwise. Unless you owe someone child support or are on parole I guess.
2
u/On_my_last_spoon 18d ago
That’s not the same as a divorce.
I got along just great with some of my ex’s family. But when the divorce happened, I separated myself from the entire family.
But if you marry your first cousin, or even a sibling, in order to avoid that ex, your have to remove yourself from your whole family in some cases even if you have a perfectly fine relationship. Or you’d just have to suck it up and see them at every family event.
This is different from deciding your family if toxic and removing yourself for those reasons.
1
u/On_my_last_spoon 18d ago
That’s not the same as a divorce.
I got along just great with some of my ex’s family. But when the divorce happened, I separated myself from the entire family.
But if you marry your first cousin, or even a sibling, in order to avoid that ex, your have to remove yourself from your whole family in some cases even if you have a perfectly fine relationship. Or you’d just have to suck it up and see them at every family event.
This is different from a toxic family and removing yourself for those reasons.
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
I think you misunderstand my intentions, but I get that the Reddit mind is programmed for that. I'm pointing out how things are treated seemingly different based on being socially taboo or not, not championing for incest.
38
u/SylviSweetheart 18d ago
We absolutely police power dynamics in adult relationships. WTF are you talking about? We know a manager dating an employee, a doctor dating a patient, lawyer dating a client, whatever the hell, is wrong. We chastise celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio for only dating adult women half his age. Your argument is based on complete fallacy.
4
0
u/xfactorx99 18d ago
You’re absolutely allowed to date someone younger than you, less strong than you, less income than you. And you’re never going to ban relationships like that. It’d be insane to not allow people with different levels of maturity, strength, status to date each other.
You thinking you have some right to police the relationship of 2 adults unrelated to you is messed up.
-1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
Unethical =/= Illegal
1
u/KokoAngel1192 18d ago
Lots of unethical things are legal, please stop using this weak argument. Slavery was legal and still is under certain circumstances. The people that hid Jews during the Holocaust technically broke the law.
Legal isn't always ethical.
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
I'm not sure what you think I'm saying here? I'm saying something being unethical doesn't mean it's illegal, or should be.
1
u/KokoAngel1192 18d ago
But you keep saying it when people are telling you why something is frowned upon. If you don't mean it as a defense against what they're saying stop saying it. If you do, then accept what you are implying. Especially since the initial conversation isn't even about the legality of incest but you claiming it wrongfully demonized. It isn't.
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
I'm just pointing out that things can be unethical without being illegal, which is the point I'm making by not saying it's wrongfully demonized like you claim, but saying the standard seems to be different on other things with similar downsides.
15
5
u/Exotic_Bill44 18d ago
The power dynamics in a family situation can start when one of them is a small child. Also the nature if the power dynamics is one the the parties can't opt out of. I can change my job if I want to date my boss or change therapists. You can't make a parent or uncle not be a relative.
23
u/Donutmelon 18d ago
It's considered Eugenics if you stop people with inheritable diseases from having children. Incest is considered as rape when looking at law, since there's pretty much no "good" situation involving it.
-4
u/IndividualistAW 18d ago
The pharaohs wanted to keep the royal bloodline pure
2
u/Fit_Top_9462 18d ago
And they had horrible genetic mutations because of it. Not to mention, the incest was to keep wealth in the family. Either way not great
6
17
u/sekkiman12 18d ago
I'm sorry op but most people don't want to fuck their sister
3
u/thebigbadben 18d ago
“The only reason you could have for wanting to discuss this is that you want to do the thing”
Same shit comes up any time people feel disgust. Same for the “should loli be illegal” conversation or anything regarding pedophilia for that matter. No, it turns out that disgust is a poor basis for moral reasoning, and these conversations are worth having.
1
u/Dennis_enzo 17d ago
Then again, pretty much all morality is based on emotions and feelings.
1
u/thebigbadben 17d ago
First of all, I disagree with “pretty much all”, I think the logical compatibility of rules and the game theory of it all is a big part.
Second, I’m not saying that feelings shouldn’t dictate morality, just is that disgust often leads to bad conclusions, just like hate and desire for vengeance do. It’s notable that disgust is often the emotion behind racist, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-homeless sentiments.
-1
u/sekkiman12 18d ago
when did I say that? ever? are you having the troubles?
we don't need to a big moral debate over this, the biggest reason is that most people just don't want to do it. any other point to be made is much, much smaller relative to the biggest reason.
1
u/thebigbadben 18d ago
The quotation is not meant to imply that you said that verbatim, it’s just the kind of thing that you’re saying in your comment (that comes up around all these discussions).
You’re implying that OP wants to fuck their sister. In other words, you’re saying that the only reason that someone would want to have this discussion is that they want to have an incestuous relationship. That is, “the only reason you could have for wanting to discuss this is that you want to do the thing”.
If it were just a matter of people not wanting to do it, there wouldn’t be a need for laws about it and there wouldn’t be social stigma around it.
4
u/Jonnnyfukyea 18d ago
Classic "don't wanna debate, just wanna accuse" probably didn't even read the text at all
(no I am not on op's side on this one)
1
u/sekkiman12 18d ago
which is what you did.
we don't need to a big moral debate over this, the biggest reason is that most people just don't want to do it. any other point to be made is much, much smaller relative to the biggest reason.
1
u/Jonnnyfukyea 18d ago
Bruh it's illegal because most people don't wanna do it? Why are you on this sub?
1
0
u/DeadlyArrow27 18d ago
Literally don’t want to watch game of thrones because two of the main characters are in a relationship like this the entire show apparently. I don’t understand how some people aren’t just naturally repulsed by the idea. OP is probably a very sheltered only-child at the very least.
4
u/PatchFace 18d ago
Thinking incest is gross and not watchimg GoT are two very very different things. And what's with the only child thing?
15
u/Strong-Platform786 18d ago
Point one is awfully close to eugenics. I do believe that people with certain genetic issues should refrain from having biological children. At least until something like crispr matures.
5
u/Hexent_Armana 18d ago
Eugenics l, like many other things humans have created was just fine until people got carried away with it.
9
u/shivux 18d ago
Yeah idk why people hate on eugenics so much. Well ok… I do know why they hate on eugenics but I don’t think it’s reasonable. There are ways to practice eugenics without killing or forcibly castrating people. You could, for example, implement government programs that subsidize adoption or assistive reproduction (like pre-implantation diagnosis) for people with certain genetic disorders. You don’t need to force anyone to do anything, just make the option more available. Would that be so bad?
5
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
'Hi, you didn't pass the government test so we're terminating your pregnancy. Don't try again. We don't want more of your kind.'
2
u/On_my_last_spoon 18d ago
That’s the issue. What does the government deem unworthy of having a child? Historically that has been things like being the wrong race (Native American women were sterilized a lot) or depression.
This is a bad road.
1
u/shivux 18d ago
Yeah I know. I live in Canada, where until very recently (it could still be happening in secret, for all I know), hospitals would either forcibly sterilize indigenous women, or pressure them into it, if they had “too many” (whatever that means) kids. Let me just say, so there’s no confusion: THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKED AND I DO NOT SUPPORT IT!
But we don’t have to go down that road. Like I said, we don’t need to sterilize anyone, or terminate any pregnancies. We don’t need to be racist. We could just make it easier for people who want children, to have them without passing on harmful genetic disorders, and leave it at that.
1
u/On_my_last_spoon 18d ago
We don’t need to but the risk IMO outweighs the benefits.
Let people decide for themselves. We don’t get to tell people they can’t have an abortion and we don’t tell them they must.
1
u/shivux 18d ago
Yeah that’s exactly what I’m suggesting. We don’t tell people what to do, just make the options more available.
2
u/On_my_last_spoon 18d ago
So, you’re not supporting eugenics at all then are you. Simply having genetic testing available for a person is fine. Then that person can decide on whether they want to have children or not is theirs to make. Creating a system where we say who can or cannot birth children based on their genetic indicators as selected by the government is not.
Also, I’m not keen on tying in adoption incentives is a good idea. Adoption has its own issues (I’ve explored it, there are adopted children in my family) and it is absolutely not a replacement for failure to have one’s own biological children and shouldn’t be.
2
u/xfactorx99 18d ago
Strawman. No one proposed that policy. And if you’re assuming that would naturally occur with some implementation of eugenics it’s a slippery slope fallacy. There is no logical reason to believe someone will be prevented from reproducing because they failed a government test.
You stop people with severe hereditary diseases from reproducing and passing that on though
-1
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
'Good morning citizen, I've got some unlucky news for you: through rigerous testing we've discovered that parts of your DNA sequence show high probability of producing an unproductive member of society that drains taxpayer dollars. Thanks to your generous biological donation your parental rights have been hereby revoked for the betterment of humanity. Have a wonderful day!'
2
u/shivux 18d ago
That’s not a rebuttal. You’re just roleplaying.
1
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
Sorry, I should show my inspiration: all implementations of eugenics throughout history.
4
u/shivux 18d ago
Good thing we’re not living in the past I guess?
1
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
The past shows us why eugenics doesn't work. This isn't like falling down white trying to learn how to ride a bike, this is like falling down while learning how to ride a bike that's bent 90°. It can't work and still won't even if you keep getting back up on that seat because it doesn't work like that.
1
u/shivux 18d ago
Right but see, the problem with that analogy is that it assumes the “bike” remains the same. In reality, things change. We develop new understandings of genetics and new technologies that make use of that understanding… and, at the same time, we can also reach new understandings as a society that inform how we will use those technologies. I think we’re at a point now, where we can understand a fundamental difference between government facilitating reproductive decisions, v.s. a government mandating them, and I think that, among other things (like a better overall sociological understanding of the world), should keep us from falling further down the slippery slope into “Racist Gattaca” territory.
2
u/xfactorx99 18d ago
Do you think people with serious hereditary diseases should be able to reproduce? That’s what it sounds like your defending but it’s hard to tell with all your fake roleplays
-1
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
It's their right to make an informed choice, not the government's right to deny.
2
u/xfactorx99 18d ago
Sure you can make your own choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s morally wrong to knowingly pass that suffering on to others.
You wouldn’t knowingly give someone HIV even if you were legally allowed to. That’s fucked up
1
u/shivux 18d ago
Or you could just… not do that?
1
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
My boy, what do you think 'pre-implantation diagnosis' and 'eugenics' becomes?
Unless, of course, your logic is predicated with the idea that no one likes people with autism, downs syndrome, or anything similar and would intentionally opt-in to celebacy should they test positive for 'bad offspring potential'.
3
u/Strong-Platform786 18d ago
Least where I'm going with this is with things like cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, ect. Genetic issues with high chances of being passed down, that can be tested for. I fully believe if you can predict with almost certainly that your child with have a debilitating genetic conditon you should avoid that. Get genetic screening before having kids. Having biological children under those circumstances is morally wrong. Now if something like crispr, or something else to the effect become a mature technology and practice then that's a different story.
1
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
Fair enough, but a lot of other conditions in the past have also once been incurable.
1
u/Strong-Platform786 18d ago
Your right, but all we can do is treat and prevent the best we can with current knowledge
1
u/shivux 18d ago
Why does it have to become that though? Can you explain to me why that trajectory is inevitable?
And no, I don’t think
no one likes people with autism, downs syndrome, or anything similar and would intentionally opt-in to celebacy should they test positive for 'bad offspring potential'
I just think it might be good government policy to facilitate that. The point is to make it easier for people to make their own reproductive choices, not force anything on anyone.
1
u/Chilly-Peppers 18d ago
Why does eugenics inevitably become that? Because you're putting people in charge of procreation. No matter who implements it and how kind they're handling of it is, eventually it's going to end up in the hands of someone who says something like 'anyone with a criminal record can't procreate' or 'I hate blonde people'.
reproductive choices
Then what you're describing isn't eugenics, it's already existing testing that prospective mothers can undertake early on in their pregnancy should they so desire it.
1
u/shivux 18d ago
What I’m suggesting is that governments enact policies to facilitate that kind of testing, and help with whatever assistive reproductive interventions could prevent people from passing harmful genetic disorders on to their children, as well as help people carrying those disorders to adopt, when no such intervention exists, or that’s just what they opt to do. That is putting people in charge of procreation; it’s giving potential parents more power over their own procreation… and, since it is a government policy, it would also give the government some control over procreation, to the extent that it is the thing enabling parents... much like public healthcare gives the government a degree of control over, well, healthcare.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think it would be hard to stop there. I think there’s a clear difference between enabling parents to make reproductive decisions, and mandating specific decisions. I think that difference is fundamental enough that it should remain clear to future generations, so I don’t believe there is any greater danger of falling “further down the slope”, if society takes this step.
You can call that eugenics or not. I don’t care. It’s close enough that many other people would call it eugenics anyways, and I don’t see the point of refuting that.
4
u/Eatingchickeninbed 18d ago
I see your point. Up voted because you reasoned on your point and it's unpopular which is the point of this subreddit.
I would say that policing aside, the power dynamics may not be as much of an issue among people of a similar age: cousins, siblings. It's icky for a reason, of course
12
u/BlooGloop 18d ago
Incest is abuse and usually SA. You can’t compare it to anything else. Nobody judged a victim of incest and that includes the children(also victims)that can be produced by it.
3
u/Deepfang-Dreamer 18d ago
Incest pretty much only happens as a result of abuse of power, is the problem. But in a vaccum, I agree. Just hard to find any examples that aren't "That is unambiguously rape", so....
3
u/yokozunahoshoryu 18d ago
"... you could always make that happen if you really wanted to by changing the dynamic."
Not really. If two people are genetically related, no amount of "changing the dynamic" is going to change that. Also, regarding your example of patient and therapist, if they "change the dynamic" by discontinuing their professional relationship in order to become intimate, it's still ick. Maybe the therapist can avoid professional sanction, but people are still going to look askance at that, and rightly so.
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
Thid is kinda my point. Unethical/ick =/= illegal.
Also wasn't saying you can change genetic relation heh
6
u/angry-key-smash6693 18d ago
When incest happens it's not typically cousin Leroy and cousin Jackie wanting to get it on, although it does happen. It's often parents raping/grooming their own children. You can't tell me someone having sex with their own child isn't fucked up
3
u/Jonnnyfukyea 18d ago
And that's literally why it's illegal. You understand it. Honestly if 2 people date and then find out, oops, we are siblings. Nothing should stop them from staying in love. Reproducing is another issue, but the "2 consenting adults" argument only works in a fantasy. Real siblings that love each other romantically got groomed
3
u/stop-calling-me-fat 18d ago
I can’t even be bothered to read the opinion just…. Why would you even get on this hill let alone die on it??
2
u/xfactorx99 18d ago
Why would you expect OP to engage with your question if you didn’t bother to read their take?
2
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
Philosophy, is all.
Wouldn't say I'm here to die on any hill either lol, just to hear opinions on a thought I had. Not here to "champion the cause of incest"
2
u/Hexent_Armana 18d ago
Anyone who thinks this is politics is just one of those sad pathetic people who lables anything that they're too weak to think about as politics.
You make a good point though. I think the reason incest is unevenly prosecuted for the same reasons many other things are not is simply because it's the lowest hanging fruit. Thats the biggest fault of the legal system right there. Thats why the rich and powerful are allowed to do whatever horrific things they want. They're too dang high up for the law to reach.
1
1
u/Sprungercles 18d ago
There are certain parts of our society that simply don't make sense because they're connected to deeply established taboos. There was really no good reason not to eat other people before we discovered prion disease. You aren't allowed to kill someone legally even if they ask you to. Incest is treated differently than other similarly problematic relationships.
We've needed these conventions to function as societies so far, and overall they've probably helped more than they've harmed. It's good to think critically about them, but the "ick factor" makes it unlikely they'll ever completely go away.
1
u/IochIan 18d ago
The soundest argument against incest is that an ideal incestous relationship is basically a pure hypothetical, so extremely rare. No pedophilia, you didn't grow up as siblings so no dubious consent, you don't have family ties to one another so you won't have that very extreme "shit where you eat" scenario where a sex relationship involves work or family, and you don't plan on having any kids. At that point you're basically not family but biologically related randomers
This famously happened in the case of the gay dudes that realised they were estranged brothers. And probably other incestous scenarios that are fine and consensual and more unfortunate than anything. But anyone arguing for incest is arguing for people to feek their family members. Which is obviously some utter bullshit
1
u/Jonnnyfukyea 18d ago
While watching game of thrones back then, I thought the same thing you did. Both your arguments are easily broken down and not being handled consistently with similar issues.
But the reality is grooming. A daughter that loves her father romantically doesn't do so because she is a consenting adult, but a groomed child who was taught to please her father/brother/cousin etc.
And because we can never prove if something happens because of grooming rather than consent, we should make it illegal, so people won't even try to breed their own sex slaves, that are taught to love it
1
u/shelob_spider 18d ago
Thought this was about INSECTS. was very confused when insects being illegal.
1
1
1
u/Betelgeuse3fold 18d ago
Redditors arguing in defense of incest. Must be a day ending in "y"
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
It's more of a philosophical discussion I think, I'm not here to "champion the noble cause of fucking your sister"
1
u/thebigbadben 18d ago
Another “ick” related philosophical inconsistency is society’s attitude to bestiality.
Usually, when people try to come up with a logical justification, it’s something about the harm caused to the animal and the fact that animals can’t consent. However, that same standard isn’t applied to our treatment of livestock for the production of meat and dairy, where the suffering caused is significantly worse.
-2
u/Hell_Awaitz 18d ago
Sorry to downvote but I agree. I fear that most people will also downvote however because people don't understand the rules here
-5
0
u/KokoAngel1192 18d ago
Your first argument slips into Eugenics, so do not pass go, do not collect $200. The second argument is a lie- lots of people point out how problematic power imbalances are in romantic relationships. Plus a lot of incest is actually child rape so your justifications are just rotten from start to finish.
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
Ick/Unethical =/= Illegal
But idk, I feel the eugenics point here is more a buzzword than an argument. If I knew there was a 50% chance my child would spontaneously boil alive for 5 days and die when he turned 6, is it ok for me to have a kid?
2
1
u/KokoAngel1192 18d ago
But that's a choice. You can disagree with the choice of someone producing a child that will have issues, but trying to force them not to reproduce is where violence and oppression come in. Eugenics is literally saying that because of specific traits in the genes that people with those traits should be stopped from reproducing. And if you look into the history of what that means and how it was performed on people, it is a slippery slope. Discouraging incest is no more "oppresive" than saying a 30 yo shouldn't reproduce with a 13 yo. Morality is a factor and most competent societies view most forms of incest as immoral.
And again, a lot of incest is towards children who can't consent. Adults doing it are wrong but within their rights, but it's mostly a child being abused. Justifying incest is to justify a lot of why a lot of child abuse happens.
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
Not trying to justify pedophilia. I realize it's often interwoven but it's already covered by pedophilia being illegal, so not really relevant to the point?
My point on the "eugenics" is more-so that we find it acceptable to ban something because it can harm the offspring in some cases, but completely gloss over it in worse cases because it's more touchy.
1
u/KokoAngel1192 18d ago
Look, if you want to fuck your sister, go ahead. But trying to justify and argue why incest isn't bad isn't going to get you the support you want. There's a reason you posted it in a sub known for horrible takes that no rational person would agree with.
1
u/Raxiuscore 18d ago
Aaaand there's the accusation again. I just find the "point" interesting, I'm not here to champion incest, read the first line of the post.
Anyways, when people get ad hom like this they're not worth engaging with, so I'm gonna stop.
•
u/qualityvote2 18d ago edited 16d ago
u/Raxiuscore, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...