Incest Post Comments Revisited

My 2.5 year old post on consensual incest continues to be the most popular post I’ve ever done. It’s drawn in a huge number of comments, probably because it’s now #5 in Google for [consensual incest] and #1 for [consensual sibling incest]. For the same reasons many of those comments are over the top (and some have resorted to using them as an outlet for their amateur erotica). Still, there are some interesting things in the thread that I thought to post now to see how the discussion’s fared after so long. It is especially interesting to see those who disagree with me (quoting those who agree gives no new info) so here are some verbatim bits. Each link is to that comment in the thread:

• Kohl likes the as long as I don’t have to know argument. “I tend to think of it as a deviate behavior (like homosexuality, BDSM, scat, fetish) as opposed to a perverted one (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality). So my view is that as long as it is consensual and kept in the closet (i.e., not foisted on the rest of us), then it’s perfectly acceptable.” Interestingly it’s the same argument used against gay/lesbian discrimination and Kohl makes the connection between the two. Presumably he hates any behaviour that most people don’t engage in (homosexuality, BDSM[?] etc) “foisted” on him.
   
• Kohl again: “No, they’re not ‘violating our human rights’ – just our sensibilities. I am from the USA, where people tend to be pretty uptight about such things. (Like, if you saw your teenage daughter naked, then you’ve raped her – some people really are that warped.) So, the point I was trying to make is it should be ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ on a societal level, if only just to keep the peace.”
   
• Dana writes: “Essentially, the question or practice of incest is, or has been historically, determined by the evolution of the social order of a society. If, over years of practical experience, it is determined to be detrimental to the development of an ordered or practical structure, it is condemned or at least discouraged…In the last several hundred years, it has proven, if not detrimental, then non beneficial for the practice of incestuous relationships to continue unabated in productive societies. Therefore, since those of power can determine its continuance or blatant practice, it is a risky behavior and one most probably best avoided so as not to draw the ire of those in authority. Society as a whole has determined through the experience of time that incest is not a viable alternative or even a desirable one, since any benefit is far outweighed by undesirable genetic ramifications. Therefore, even through the eyes of an agnostic or atheist, I would find nothing to recommend the practice to a rational human being. I would not condemn those involved in incest for I believe all are free moral agents.”
   
• Dana again: “The consequence of sex with family members being “convenientâ€? is hardly justification for the practice. The concept of honor and character should prevent some activities. Though some would argue that if a crime, it is a “victimlessâ€? crime, it might not be true in the majority of cases. Society, or evolved civilization, certainly does have the right to establish certain values that will be accepted as “moralsâ€? whether or not we agree with all of them.”
   
• Keddaw responds: “The concept of honor? Seriously? The same concept that leads a father to kill his raped daughter? The same concept that makes people hide their disabled children?”
   
• Bud writes: “I am amused at all the words you self proclaimed experts have wasted in trying to justify your particular dogmas. Being a physicist by education, I can’t imagine the rationale of those who call themselves religious…Morality is the perception of actions good or evil judged by every nondescript idiot since the first savage objected to the actions of his fellows…Is one position superior to another? No, unless it violates another’s realm.” So then how’s the position that we shouldn’t violate another’s realm superior to the alternative?
   
• Finally Lost writes (I believe ironically missing the point of much of the post): “I think people are missing the point. Ok, so there is a chance of disabilities and genetic defects in offspring. Thats a health issue. What about the psychological impact? Would you want to be a child born to parents that are brother and sister? How will that affect a child growing up? Also, many true life cases ive come across (including a personal one) of consensual sibling incest, its usually a selfish desire and neither party want to get caught. Maybe they enjoy the hidden thrill of it. Not many are willing to fight and stand up for their will to “loveâ€? as they put it, unlike same sex marriages. In many true life cases if both siblings are married or involved with others they are still very happy to carry on with the betrayal. Its very difficult to catch a brother and sister having a sexual affair after all. A family is the only place to have the opportunity of safety and sanctity of love with respect without the intereference of sexuality. A safe ground to escape to. We can have sex with anyone. But if were honest true strong love does not require sex to be involved. If your madly in love, if its a true love, sex is nice but is nothing compared to the respect and companionship that is rewarded from that love. So with that thought, whats sex got to do with it all?”