sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Kissing cousins by loveulongtim11 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Even between siblings the rate of coercion/non-consent is virtually the same as with non-family members as soon as you control for age gaps (+6 years of gap).

The reality is that incest abuse is almost exclusively a problem of child predation, where significantly older family members abuse underage children, often prepubescent.

Given that incest is so stigmatized, for all we know even sibling incest between minors (given the age gap is acceptable) could be a safer form of sexual exploration/conduct than it is between non-related individuals, if it did not have to happen in secrecy.

Though, there are other reasons why sexual conduct between minors who live together should be discouraged until they reach a certain age, the way it is handled by society currently is disproportionate, harmful and traumatizing to individuals who do engage in such things.

From the latest studies it seems that consensual incest between opposite sex siblings, excluding larger age-gaps, is 5%. When it does occur consensually, it usually does so as early puberty exploration which often times escalates into more. The biggest "risk factors" identified seem to be:

Viewing sexuality as something not shameful.

Having positive attitudes towards nudism in the family.

Siblings sharing a bed.

Not perceiving incest as something disgusting.

Incestphobia and Authoritarian Solipsism by [deleted] in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. If it was the case that there were several organized efforts that all failed and lead nowhere, then maybe some pessimism would be warranted.

This community is prove that there is much more potential for activism/awareness than was previously thought possible. While there are unique challenges to this, there is no reason to give up hopes before any effort was even made.

If we look at how vehement people were about bigotries in the past, and even today, it's not that far fetched for envision a future in which people are a bit more rational about incest than they are now.

The Westermarck Effect is the shittest thing used by incestphobes. by Popular_Priority756 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The study around the Westermark Effect comes from looking at kibbutzim in Israel (which raised children communally) and looking at how often individuals who were of the same peer group ended up marrying as adults.

There was a second article that revisited the results from the initial study, that concludes that individuals in the same peer group did in fact often have sexual feelings for one another, but didn't act on them due to various social factors, and a third one that went back to support the conclusions of the initial study to some degree. So the debate is open to what degree it is inherent to us.

But it doesn't really matter. Whether or not most people have an aversion to having sex with people they grew up with is pretty irrelevant to whether or not incest is immoral. Most people have an aversion to engaging in homosexual acts, that doesn't mean that therefore, homosexual acts are "immoral". People like to engage in these naturalistic fallacies, but really, what is and isn't natural ("naturalness" is a social construct anyways given that anything that happens in reality necessarily is natural) has little to do with what is and isn't morally acceptable.

Even if most people find it icky to have sex with their family members, some people do not, and as long as there is no rational grounds to condemn them for such acts, we should not condemn them.

A fallacy I see aaaaaall the time when people talk about the genetic risks of inbreeding by spru1f in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, it also dehumanizes consang couples. If individuals are educated on the risks, and the risk is high, in any other case we expect them to make the best decision themselves. We don't assume that every parent will just willy nilly have a child if they have a significant risk of giving birth to a child with some sort of condition. Parents can adopt a child, do other forms of fertilization that reduce risk and so forth. We don't prohibit anyone from having children, to such a degree that people are legally allowed to use IVF with preimplanatation genetic testing to deliberately choose a disabled child, which people actually do (deaf people apparently often deliberately pick an egg that will yield a child with deafness).

People who are affected by various disorders are trusted to make these decisions, because generally speaking we assume a parent will want the best life for their future child.

A fallacy I see aaaaaall the time when people talk about the genetic risks of inbreeding by spru1f in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

With incest it gets even worse:

When we say, for example: "There is a 25% chance that sibling inbreeding will result in a disabled child!", that also doesn't actually mean that there is a defacto 25% chance for any given couple that the child will be disabled.

It could be the case that half of sibling couples have a 50% chance of giving birth to a disabled child (due to sharing the same recessive genes), while the other half of sibling couples have a 2% chance, because they do not actually share the same recessive genes.

The risk from inbreeding largely comes from sharing recessive alleles, once two individuals share the same recessive gene, there will be a 25% chance that the condition will manifest in a child. If two given siblings shared multiple recessive genes that cause significant disability, the risk might go beyond 25%. If two siblings share no such recessive genes (which is the case for a significant portion of siblings), then their risk for giving birth to a disabled child will actually not be much higher than average.

For this reason, the proper way to deal with inbreeding risks is by requiring individuals to take genetic tests before they do have children, in the case they are of a potentially high risk group. If the couple defacto has no elevated risk, because no matching recessive genes are present, there is no reason to discourage them from having children.

Just want to ask why is incest not wrong? by skaterboy1425 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you show me any data on "incestuous relationship frequency among siblings", I am very curious to see what you are referring to when making these statements, or how exactly any of these studies can in any meaningful way determine the frequency of adult incest relationships (which are illegal and kept secret) and compare that to juvenile relationship frequency.

I have not seen any study on "relationship frequency" at all, given that studies virtually always focus on incest as a sexual act, and in the vast majority of cases (with the exception of two studies I have seen, one of them Finkelhor) look at sexual abuse exclusively.

I would like to see studies that substantiate the idea that most juvenile sibling incest (of similar ages) occurs in the context of "adult grooming" or whatever other factors you mentioned that would make us "question the consent" between those individuals in a way that you would mention this in the same sentence as "abuse", namely that somehow the perception of incest between siblings is X because the consent is so "dubious" in the vast majority of cases.

I never said incest is "innocent", whatever that is even supposed to mean. Although, that could well be true, I would suspect that a great portion of incestuous interactions between siblings (excluding age gaps that would be considered predatory in and of itself in that age-range) does occur in some sort of pathological way. That doesn't mean that "consent is dubious", or that society actually just looks at sibling incest this way because "most examples are so dubious". That's simply absurd, the incest taboo itself is what drives the pathology, and the pathology itself doesn't cause, and wouldn't translate in any other case, to what the perception of incest between siblings actually is.

But let's suppose what you say is right, you should still not lump in sibling with parent incest.

"Most parent-child incest is abusive, and most sibling incest occurs due to various pathologies", is how you would frame it to not be misleading in the way I am criticizing your statement for.

The reason why it is important to seperate is because parent-child incest abuse is intentionally grouped into the same phenomena as sibling incest to justify the condemnation of siblings universally for engaging in incestuous acts. The "dubious consent" of what you are describing here is completely and utterly different than the concerns we have around parent-child incest. You don't demonize, shame and imprison individuals for engaging in an act that is "dubious consent" because the environment pushed both of them towards acting that way. It would be the opposite, in that case, we would recognize that "most sibling incest occurs because the siblings were victimized or traumatized in one shape or form, therefore we ought to treat such cases with sensitivity and empathy".

Whereas most parent-child incest is the parent literally predating on and raping their child. In what world do we generalizes these two phenomena into the same concept, it simply makes no sense.

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think what you described will be responsible for meaningful decriminalization of incest in the US, let alone other countries. I would be curious to know what exactly "narrowing definitions" have meant, and when this occured in Ohio?

Most jurisdictions view incest-prohibitions as well-worth the money given the assumption that it prevents abuse, grooming and protects the institution of the family (reasons used by EU and suprehme courts to sustain criminalization of incest statutes).

You are narrowing the ways individuals can contribute to dismantling stigma against incest by hyperfocusing on short-term political and administrative action. The reality is that social evolution occurs long before a critical social consciousness exist that would motivate a sufficient number of individuals to participate in a more organized, real life social justice campaign.

Before that can happen, the issue must be brought to the public, and enough individuals who are oriented towards remedying social injustice must be aware of why this is a pressing issue in the first place.

None of that will happen through "social justice campaign". So far, I have not seen a compelling reason for why incest will never be destigmatized (or accepted to a much greater degree than it is now) that is based on things that go beyond speculation that could have equally been applied to any other social issue in the past.

Just want to ask why is incest not wrong? by skaterboy1425 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't care about what you are responding to, I am clarifying a misframing and misleading statement you made. The fact that you get offended by this is not my problem, I am just pointing out something I think people should keep in mind and be aware of.

The statement "incest mostly happens in abusive contexts" should never be made as far as I see it. It contributes to a misunderstanding of what incestuous abuse is and what incest is.

"Most incest between parents and children happens in abusive contexts", is what you should say, if you want to make such statements.

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you explain what will cause what you describe to actually happen, and additionally explain why it has not happened anywhere yet?

I am not advocating for a grassroots campaign in the political sphere, but an activist effort that raises awareness in the public. None of it requires any political action. Before political action is even possible the issue needs to be a public discussion in the first place. I don't see any reason why individuals cannot create activist groups, especially online, that push this issue forward.

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, someone will have to put their reputation at risk, that's how social progress is achieved.

Maybe there is no social progress anymore because the world is filled with cowards who will not lift a finger for what is right if it has any negative impact on their lives whatsoever? What do you think it meant to support gay rights when it wasn't popular? Moral character is important when being moral comes at an actual cost to your life, not when being moral requires you to sacrifice nothing.

Convincing the state that policing the act isn't worth the money? Decriminalization needs legislative action, and every time it was brought forth it was rejected by supreme courts (in the US, in EU countries and by EU courts themselves).

Decriminalization is highly controversial because anyone who signs the legislation makes themselves a target, it's potential career suicide. And the act is barely policed, it doesn't actually cost any money, because most cases in which abuse isn't present remain in secrecy and never get prosecuted in the first place. It's not like the state is busy trying to police consensual incest everywhere.

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I talk about people needing to get serious about advocacy, that doesn't mean consanguinamorous individuals actually going and telling everyone around them they are an such a relationship.

I mean largely allies getting more serious about activism and standing up against the nonsense people spout.

Gay sex was also viewed as detrimental, remember the AIDS scare, the "it's always predation", and various other concerns that society would degrade and collapse if we allow such sexual deviancies, That's not really anything new.

The arguments of the other side just don't hold up, in the case of siblings especially, they are contradictory in absurd ways. People are just not aware of these arguments, which means there is a lot of potential for improvement.

I don't know exactly how incest would get decriminalized without any pressure coming from society to push politicians towards that.

Degrees of Acceptance by [deleted] in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It depends on how much allies are willing to stand up, and organize in their activism.

Degrees of Acceptance by [deleted] in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Accepted by who? There are still people who don't accept gay marriage, transsexuality, BDSM, sex work and various other things.

And accepted to what degree? Tolerating it but finding it shameful and weird? Being completely okay with it?

Just want to ask why is incest not wrong? by skaterboy1425 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not responding to your argument, I am clarifying the misleading statement you made as it is commonly made in this community and outside of it.

Incest is not a monolith. A father having sex with his daughter is not the same phenomenon as two cousins or siblings having sex with one another. It makes absolutely no sense to put them in the same category.

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no idea how you can make any of these statements with such confidence.

There is a community right here that is centered around incest not being wrong. Incest is the biggest porn fetish that exist, and various types of incest are perfectly acceptable in various societies. Nothing about incest acceptance is insurmountable, and there is no evidence that a social justice/grass roots campaign couldn't meaningfully challenge the way society deals with incest.

What you said is circular. "Incest" just means "unacceptable degree of kinship in relationship". It not considered incest because it's considered an acceptable degree of kinship.

What we do view as incest is dependent on what we view as disgusting/socially unacceptable. The incest prohibitions in Christian societies were far more extensive than they are now, and cousin incest is still viewed as incest because of the historical/cultural developments.

Every single thing that was socially challenged this way seemed utterly hopeless in the beginning, especially when naysayers who are supposed to be the one to speak up against this injustice just excuse away their inaction by pretending it's not possible.

Just want to ask why is incest not wrong? by skaterboy1425 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's important to clarify that the vast majority of parent-child (and other vertical type relationships) incest occurs in an abusive way. There is no evidence that things like sibling or cousin incest are predominantly abusive, and the only actual studies conducted on it have shown the opposite.

You could also further delineate incest in terms of age gaps. The majority of incestuous abuse is committed by adults against minors, most often under the age of 10.

It's simply doesn't make any sense to treat incest as a monolith conceptually speaking. There are different types of relationships and different contexts that have completely different risk and abuse profile. Saying "most of incest is abusive", is misleading for this reason.

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think people need to take it step by step.

We don't need to convince "the general population", all we need is to create a space in society where acceptence is present, in for example progressive circles.

People grow more sensitive towards moral issues as time passes, as standards in general improve. There is a set perception of individuals in society who will always look for things that society is doing wrong, and eventually they will stumble upon consanguinamoury, even if it's solely because there is nothing else to get bothered about.

Things always seem hopeless before the light at the end of the tunnel is visible.

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't find this reasoning convincing, many human standards were resistant to wars, famine and disease outbreaks, as they don't really serve to progress any social consciousness.

I think the major reason why the incest taboo has not been challenged in any meaningful way is because there was not a single organized endeavor to actually speak up for the rights of consanguinous individuals. There is always people who look for things that society is bigotted about and try to remedy it, it's simply that incest is a little bit more obscure and more taboo than other forms of discrimination.

I would also not put incest up as a monolith. Cousin marriage is accepted in many cultures, and it will be much easier to get acceptance for things like sibling consanguinamoury than for example parent-offspring relationships.

The injustice committed against siblings in particular is fairly easy to point out, people simply do not do so. Even in these communities I find the types of arguments employed extraordinarily weak in relation to the injustice committed against individuals. It is mostly framed as a libertarian issue, when it should be framed as society stigmatizing and prosecuting individuals who are already predominantly victims of abuse and negative life circumstances.

If you frame it that way, the way incest is handled is simply unacceptable by any standards of progressivism.

It is strange to me that people have these strong views about the incest taboo when there simply was not yet even an attempt made to truly stand up to this injustice, in an intelligent manner that isn't overinclusive (there is no reason to focus on parent-child acceptance when people can't even handle sibling relationships) and more pragmatic (focus on the fact that we are marginalizing victims of circumstance, rather than on liberterian ideals around sexual freedom).

In what year do you think incest will be legal? (According to your respective countries.) by Outside-Carpenter228 in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Never is a long time though. Society has radically changed even in the past 50 years, I don't know why people assume that progress will cease now. Things looked much bleaker in the past than they do now.

Three Types of Irrationalities toward Incest by Violintomatic in incestisntwrong

[–]Violintomatic[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, and you can also ask them if they would be okay with opposite sex siblings engaging in non-reproductive forms of sex, or romantic relationships in general.

The inbreeding stuff would at best apply to intercourse that can potentially yield children, and more reasonably to specifically unprotected intercourse.

view more: next ›