What's wrong with incest?

[Poseidon Soter]

That doesn't really address my question. If the reason for incest being (socially) problematic is because it's not a healthy behaviour, are you saying that all other unhealthy behaviours are also similarly problematic?

 

[Polymath257]

One of my friends was adopted and found out she has a brother that she never knew. They had a very strong mutual attraction when they met. He had a vasectomy and they became sexual.

So, no children were possible. There was no power difference. Both were adults.

I don't see a problem in that situation.

The sexual aspect of their situation didn't last long, but it was there.

 

[Curious George]

But we don't ban other kinds of relationships where there might in principle be abuse happening...

Only because doing so would affect too many unnecessarily or also involve too munch government intervention. It is not an easy area. Let us take jobs for instance. We could in theory decide to disallow marriages between boss and employee, but what would this entail? Well it might require preexisting relationship exemptions, it would require background searches, it would not just a look but a close look at the business to see if there was direct supervision. Whereas we can presume supervision in instances of parent and child. It is certainly a subject by subject basis. In this specific instance close instances of incest are forbidden in order to avoid government entanglement and preserve privacy in other instances we cannot disallow types of marriage for the same reason despite a frequency of abuse.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So two (or more) brothers or sisters say, who are consenting adults and of a similar age, no problem in your books?

It's the chances of subsequent children having problems for me, otherwise not really.

 

[Shaul]

That's why in some countries same-sex incest is allowed

Eww. Gross on multiple levels.

 

[Jumi]

....plus I had some ugly cousins...just sayin'.

Most countries around the world don't consider first-cousin marriage incest. Though it doesn't sound healthy to me either.

 

[Vouthon]

My religion has traditionally had the most stringent prohibition with regard to incest.

See the Baltimore Catechism, for instance:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-36-on-the-third-fourth-fifth-and-sixth-commandments-of-the-church/

Q. 1360. What is the meaning of the commandment not to marry within the third degree of kindred?

A. The meaning of the commandment not to marry within the third degree of kindred is that no one is allowed to marry another within the third degree of blood relationship.

Q. 1361. Who are in the third degree of blood relationship?

A. Second cousins are in the third degree of blood relationship, and persons whose relationship is nearer than second cousins are in closer degrees of kindred. It is unlawful for persons thus related to marry without a dispensation or special permission of the Church.​

4th degree was third cousins according to the canonical method of calculation. In 1917, they apparently permitted those in the 4th degree (i.e. third cousins) to marry whereas they hadn’t been allowed to do so pardoning a dispensation since 1215 and then in 1983 those in the 3rd degree as well (i.e. second cousins).

Here is what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say with reference to the medieval consanguinity rulings of the canon law in his Summa, quoting St. Augustine of Hippo.

After explaining that incest and sexual relations between “kindred descended from a common, close ancestor” is against "natural and instinctive feelings of honour" and that “since a man has natural affection for his own kin, were this to be charged with sexuality it would…rage with libidinousness against chastity”, he noted:

“…The third reason is that incest would prevent people widening their circle of friends. When a man takes a wife from another family he is joined in special friendship with her relations; they are to him as his own. And so Augustine writes, “The demands of charity are fulfilled by people coming together in the bonds that the various ties of friendship require, so that they may live together in a profitable and becoming amity; nor should one man have many relationships restricted to one other, but each single should go to many singly.”…”
​

From Jack Goody’s “The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe” [pgs. 56-8]:

“What were the grounds for these extensive prohibitions on consanguineous marriages? The ‘Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique’ (1949) gives three general reasons that have been proposed:

“1. The moral reason, that marriage would threaten the respect and shame due to near ones.
“2. The social reason, that distant marriages enlarge the range of social relations. This common ‘anthropological’ notion was put forward by those great theologians, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, who recognised that out-marriage multiplied the ties of kinship and thus prevented villages from becoming ‘closed communities’, that is, solidary ones.
“3. The physiological reason, that the fertility of the mother or the health of the children might be endangered.

“The statements of Thomas Aquinas, which appeared in his ‘Summa Theologica‘ and was highly influential during the Middle Ages, raised a number of possible objections to consanguineous marriage…. Third, such unions would ‘prevent people widening their circle of friends’ (2 above)….​

I think its a great argument against excessive inbreeding even by today’s standards, when something like 50% of Middle Easterners, among other regions of the world, marry their cousins thereby “keeping it within the family” and then some with possible consequences for health and incidence of birth defects.

The strict consanguinity laws of medieval Catholicism (restrictive even by today’s standards) actually helped to facilitate the development of large scale, non-kin cooperation and specialization (the key to Western success), that is modern statehood essentially.

 

[Shaul]

One of my friends was adopted and found out she has a brother that she never knew. They had a very strong mutual attraction when they met. He had a vasectomy and they became sexual.

So, no children were possible. There was no power difference. Both were adults.

I don't see a problem in that situation.

The sexual aspect of their situation didn't last long, but it was there.

From that description I imagine they already had many troubles. I can’t see that incest would help in anyway.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That doesn't really address my question. If the reason for incest being (socially) problematic is because it's not a healthy behaviour, are you saying that all other unhealthy behaviours are also similarly problematic?

Of course, that's why they're unhealthy behaviors. Maybe you're wondering about it from an ethical standpoint. My answer would be that it would vary between cultures socially so there's no really no wrong or right answer here depending upon who you ask.

Some will think it's disgusting, others will think it doesn't really matter all that much.

 

[Vouthon]

A little more on this, from Avner Greif (“Family structure, institutions, and growth – the origin and implications of Western corporatism”):

“The conquest of the Western Roman Empire by Germanic tribes during the medieval period probably strengthen the importance of kinship groups in Europe. Yet, the actions of the Church caused the nuclear family — constituting of husband and wife, children, and sometimes a handful of close relatives — to dominate Europe by the late medieval period.

“The medieval church instituted marriage laws and practices that undermined large kinship groups. From as early as the fourth century, it discouraged practices that enlarged the family, such as polygamy, concubinage...It severely prohibited marriages among individuals of the same blood (consanguineous marriages), which had constituted a means to create and maintain kinship groups throughout history. The church also curtailed parents’ abilities to retain kinship ties through arranged marriages by prohibiting unions in which the bride didn’t explicitly agree to the union.

“European family structures did not evolve monotonically toward the nuclear family nor was their evolution geographically and socially uniform. However, by the late medieval period the nuclear family was dominate. Even among the Germanic tribes, by the eighth century the term family denoted one’s immediate family, and shortly afterwards tribes were no longer institutionally relevant. Thirteenth-century English court rolls reflect that even cousins were as likely to be in the presence of non-kin as with each other.

“The practices the church advocated, such as monogamy, are still the norm in Europe. Consanguineous marriages in contemporary Europe account for less than one percent of the total number of marriages. In contrast, the percentage of such marriages in Muslim, Middle Eastern countries, where we also have particularly good data, is much higher – between twenty to fifty percent. Among the anthropologically defined 356 contemporary societies of Euro-Asia and Africa, there is a large and significant negative correlation between Christianization (for at least 500 years) and the absence of clans and lineages; the level of commercialization, class stratification, and state formation are insignificant.”​

 

[Naama]

The thread title is pretty self-explanatory. But just to expand a little, how do you define incest - how closely-related does someone need to be - and why do you think it is wrong (assuming you do - if you don't, why not?)?

PS

..........Well there are things I find taboo and things I think are wrong...........

Incest is taboo but not wrong to me. Having a child through incest is taboo and wrong to me though..........

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Only because doing so would affect too many unnecessarily or also involve too munch government intervention. It is not an easy area. Let us take jobs for instance. We could in theory decide to disallow marriages between boss and employee, but what would this entail? Well it might require preexisting relationship exemptions, it would require background searches, it would not just a look but a close look at the business to see if there was direct supervision. Whereas we can presume supervision in instances of parent and child. It is certainly a subject by subject basis. In this specific instance close instances of incest are forbidden in order to avoid government entanglement and preserve privacy in other instances we cannot disallow types of marriage for the same reason despite a frequency of abuse.

Your argument might well apply to parent-child sexual relationships, but what of sibling-sibling sexual relationships (involving consenting adults of a similar age)?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

It's the chances of subsequent children having problems for me, otherwise not really.

So, in your opinion, should incest (of all kinds) be banned under the law?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Of course, that's why they're unhealthy behaviors. Maybe you're wondering about it from an ethical standpoint. My answer would be that it would vary between cultures socially so there's no really no wrong or right answer here depending upon who you ask.

Some will think it's disgusting, others will think it doesn't really matter all that much.

So are you saying that all unhealthy behaviours should suffer from the same legal sanctions as incest?

 

[Curious George]

Your argument might well apply to parent-child sexual relationships, but what of sibling-sibling sexual relationships (involving consenting adults of a similar age)?

Are we talking same sex sibling sibling relationships of the same age? It sounds like a very narrow exemption that would require investigation on a case by case basis to maintain that no coercion/abuse could be lurking in the history. While that very well might be a class where we could offer individual exemptions doing so would require asking the individuals involved to give up privacy rights and to overcome presumptions. In other words, when we have sufficient governmental interest to ban such relationships, should we on the basis of some small class spend government funds and time to ensure that the right to marry is available for this class?

It is a tough question. I see no reason however to extend anything more than a rational basis test to these laws. Siblings are not a "discrete and insular" minority or have not traditionally faced discrimination. On a rational basis these laws past muster and while I may understand that this means some individuals will not have the right to marry when it no way conflicts with a governmental interest, the group's right, (as a whole), does conflict with legitimate governmental interest.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The thread title is pretty self-explanatory. But just to expand a little, how do you define incest - how closely-related does someone need to be - and why do you think it is wrong (assuming you do - if you don't, why not?)?

Genetic issues are a problem. I guess you could screen for those, but it's probably for the best to avoid it.

But what's wrong here is arguably the child abuse, rather than the incest.

Are you saying if the kids he had sex with weren't related to him it would be better?

My mother is deep into genealogy. She discovered my father and my mother are 4th cousins, confirmed when they had to have a blood test for some reason I forget and they had details in the blood that only made sense if they were related. Mental illness and various other disorders run rampant all over my family tree. I think the only reason my brother and I can "fake" being normal so well is we think that the two genetic lines with lots of screw ups merged and somehow we ended up getting some of the "pure line" back before the lines split up.

 

[Vouthon]

Most countries around the world don't consider first-cousin marriage incest. Though it doesn't sound healthy to me either.

True, though as I stated above, the Catholic Church contends to this day that first-cousin marriage is incestuous.

First cousins who wish to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony in a Catholic church are required by canon law to seek a dispensation, because it is viewed as an impediment to sexual union without a special exemption.

In the medieval period, marriage was prohibited by the Church at the Lateran Council of 1215 within the fourth degree of a consanguineous relationship, that is between third cousins or any anything closer.

In 1917, the dispensation requirement was dropped for third cousins. In 1983, it was abandoned for second cousins as well.

The first cousin ban remains in force, however, and there is still strong encouragement of exogamy.

That said, while the first cousin ban may be overridden, or dispensed, for what is typically called "just cause", the restrictions on marrying parents, children, or siblings may not be dispensed under any circumstances:

Canon 1078 §3. A dispensation is never given from the impediment of consanguinity in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.
​

So, first cousin marriage is still forbidden by canon law but for very significant reasons the bishop may dispense from the prohibition.

 

[Naama]

I apparently have two half-sisters, if still alive, the product of incest by my grandfather abusing my mother. And one of her sisters might have had the same too. Nothing right about that sort of incest since it was just child abuse.

I'm really sorry to hear that.....

gives internet hug

 

[Polymath257]

From that description I imagine they already had many troubles. I can’t see that incest would help in anyway.

Both of them seemed to find the experience beneficial.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

A little more on this, from Avner Greif (“Family structure, institutions, and growth – the origin and implications of Western corporatism”):

“The conquest of the Western Roman Empire by Germanic tribes during the medieval period probably strengthen the importance of kinship groups in Europe. Yet, the actions of the Church caused the nuclear family — constituting of husband and wife, children, and sometimes a handful of close relatives — to dominate Europe by the late medieval period.

“The medieval church instituted marriage laws and practices that undermined large kinship groups. From as early as the fourth century, it discouraged practices that enlarged the family, such as polygamy, concubinage...It severely prohibited marriages among individuals of the same blood (consanguineous marriages), which had constituted a means to create and maintain kinship groups throughout history. The church also curtailed parents’ abilities to retain kinship ties through arranged marriages by prohibiting unions in which the bride didn’t explicitly agree to the union.

“European family structures did not evolve monotonically toward the nuclear family nor was their evolution geographically and socially uniform. However, by the late medieval period the nuclear family was dominate. Even among the Germanic tribes, by the eighth century the term family denoted one’s immediate family, and shortly afterwards tribes were no longer institutionally relevant. Thirteenth-century English court rolls reflect that even cousins were as likely to be in the presence of non-kin as with each other.

“The practices the church advocated, such as monogamy, are still the norm in Europe. Consanguineous marriages in contemporary Europe account for less than one percent of the total number of marriages. In contrast, the percentage of such marriages in Muslim, Middle Eastern countries, where we also have particularly good data, is much higher – between twenty to fifty percent. Among the anthropologically defined 356 contemporary societies of Euro-Asia and Africa, there is a large and significant negative correlation between Christianization (for at least 500 years) and the absence of clans and lineages; the level of commercialization, class stratification, and state formation are insignificant.”​

Perhaps the reason that the European Christian notion of a proper sexual relationship has come to dominate in Europe is because - for reasons not linked to European Christian notions of a proper sexual relationship - Christianity came to dominate in Europe...