Forum

Quote:

Though that doesn't mean the rest of the world was having incest parties all the time

/sigh that wasn't what I was saying. And I was talking about genetic evidence not anecdotal evidence. And the huge communities that seem to demand incestuous pornography of the drawn and/or literary variety obviousy are there to satisfy the tiny amount of people who are obviously mentally deranged not to natureally be revulsed by the idea. But whatever I am done with this thread.

Dorcas_Aurelia wrote:

poilk92 wrote:

....

then there is the psychological school of thought popularized by Freud. He claims that the desire to commit sexual acts with family members is so common but so repressed that the mere thought of incest is repugnant to us.

Freud's ideas are not the definitive word on the subject.

Quote:

the third and probably most likely explanation is that back in the good old days marrying off daughters was a key part of society having a brother and sister marry would net the family no increase of influence or wealth. This practice led to the nuclear family which modern society feels is completely necessary for our civilized way of life to continue and incest is a perceived threat to that life style

So, a social system that is increasingly irrelevant to modern life is what you propose is the most likely cause of this taboo, and modern society clings to it because nuclear families are a rapidly decreasing minority?

Quote:

But almost all cases of incest are cases of sexual abuse so many people equate incest to sexual abuse which may not be so far from the truth

Almost all cases of incest you hear of are cases of sexual abuse, but incest itself isn't sexual abuse. I see them as two separate things with an unfortunately high overlap.

please don't pick and choose what you want to be fact i gave you three schools of thought thats it i never claimed that frued is the definitive word and also the most likely part was my personal opinion but it doesn't make the genetic issue that you chose to ignore any less valid. in-fact the genetic argument is the only one supported by facts the others are just idle intellectual theory

Dorcas_Aurelia wrote:

I spent too much time rewriting what I meant to say, that I ended up leaving out the part where I meant to ask what logical reasons there are that incest is bad. Saying something is bad because that's the way we've always treated it isn't sound. People think it's taboo because society tells them it's taboo. Society tells people it's taboo because someone thinks it is taboo. Rather a circular argument. I'm just trying to get to the point where we look at something deeper than a gut reaction.

Hmm... in all honesty, I don't think there really is much of one, at least not one that can be used against all forms of incest. Well, there is one logical reason I can think of that could be used to say that incest in general is wrong, but some may disagree on the "logical" part, and it's not a reason that everyone will be able to accept.

But first, let's look at the genetic argument. This fails utterly as an argument against incest for a few reasons, I think. For one thing, it's an argument not against the act itself, but against a possible consequence of the act, one that may not even apply in all cases. Consider 3 possible couples.

Couple 1 is an incestious couple that is having a physical relationship, and is using no form of birth control.

Couple 2 is an incestious couple that is having a physical relationship, and is using some form of reliable birth control.

Couple 3 is an incestious couple that is having a physical relationship, and is completely incapable of having children for some reason.

If one considers the genetic argument, than Couple 1 is immoral or wrong or whatever. Couple 2 is better, but because almost no form of birth control is perfect, one could still argue against their behavior depending on one's view on abortion (and let's not get into that in this thread). Couple 3, though, is perfectly fine.

This just seems weird and inconsistant to me. Incest is wrong, unless you can't have children, then it's ok. So all you homosexual incestious couples, or those who otherwise can't have children, are fine.

Also, if one accepts that the risk of genetic defects in one's offspring is the ONLY reason against incest, than one also has to accept that anyone with some sort of genetic condition that can be passed down should never have children.

Got a weak heart that you inherited from your father? Well, tough, guess you shouldn't ever have sex now. Not unless you want to have a little operation first.

This may seem a bit like hyperbole to some, but think about it. If you say that the genetic argument is the only reason for incest to be taboo, than it is literally no different from anyone else who has some sort of genetic issue that could be passed on. And this leads to some vary dangerous lines of thought I think.

Another argument against incest I heard on another forum is what I call the family argument. Unfortunately my memory of the argument is a bit vague.

Basically, it had to do with a certain reasonable expectation of safety that one should have with their siblings and other family members, a bond and level of trust one should be able to have which includes never having to worry about sexual relations and all their complications.

I really wish I could remember this argument better, as my cumbersome attempt to recreate it doesn't do it justice. But I think that this view is actually fairly strongly ingrained in our social conscienceness. Consider 2 possible situations.

Alice is a grown woman, whose mother Sara is a widow. She meets Tim, a grown man, whose father Alan is a widower. The two families get close, and eventually Alice falls in love with Tim, and Sara actually falls in love with Alan. Sara and Alan marry each other, and than Alice and Tim marry each other.

Nothing wrong with that, right?

Now let's consider a different situation. Alice is a 5 year old girl whose mother Sara is a widow. Sara marries Alan, a widower who has a 5 year old son named Tim. Alice and Tim are thus step-siblings, and grow up together as brother and sister. Later, when they are both 25, they fall in love and get married.

I think that if you described the two situations to people, a lot of them would have serious issues with the second situation, even though it's not actually incest. And even in the first situation, Alice and Tim were technically step siblings for a brief moment. But I think most people would find the two cases drastically different.

This to me implies that for a lot of people, the problem with incest is unrelated to actual blood relations, but instead comes down to the nature of the sibling relationship. The idea is that a sexual relationship is a perversion of the proper sibling relationship.

The interesting thing about this argument, though, is that if one accepts it as the ONLY reason incest is wrong, then it doesn't apply to cases where a brother and sister related by blood were for some reason raised apart and never really developed a sibling relationship. If one accepts this argument as the only reason against incest, that situation would actually be perfectly ok, while a relationship between two step-siblings that isn't even technically incest would in many cases be wrong.

So, is there any argument that can be really be used against actual incest in all cases? I see one, and that is an argument related to religion.

This is why I think some will debate on the "logical," but if you're reading this, please bear with me for a moment even if you're a staunch athiest. Consider the hypothetical situation that there actually is a God or gods or whatever, and the he/she/they is responsible for larger morality and is responsible for the existance of sex.

If such a God exists and is the source of both morality and sex itself, and has intended sex to be sacred or whatever and has set down certain guidelines regarding the nature of sex, then it would at the very least be unwise to break such guidelines.

The problem with such an argument is that being religious in nature, it's difficult to use when dealing with someone who does not share your religion or one with similiar views on incest. I'm a Christian, but if I'm talking to an athiest and he asks me why I view incest as wrong, responding with "God said so" may answer his question, but it will hardly convince him of the validity of my view.

Read this: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates. Commoners of Roman Occupied Egypt, African Azande, as well as the ancient Hebrew and Greeks had incestuous siblings as social custom among non-nobility. The argument of a biological component against incest is weak. Of course you could have gone to the Wiki on this subject and checked out the pages there. Hmm... just a little digging with Google provides gems like:

Quote:

Most European studies do not attempt to study statistical frequency, though some – such as a series of studies on Scandinavian incest – report considerable public acceptance of incest in some rural areas.

Anyways, I am surprised no one mentioned the blatant act of incest between Yukari and Yoichiro in "Doomed Megalopolis." Not blatant are twincesters Sorath and Tiriel of "Shakuan no Shana" and... screw it! There are so many shows with this expressed or implied that I'll just link to a list already made on Wikipedia.

@Mad_Scientist

Lol I said I wouldn't post again but man that was a great post. I hadn't considered the religious angle myself because I myself am an agnostic so for me ascribed religious rules are just as irrelevant as that of an atheist. I also agree that alot of the revulsion comes from the fact that it's a violation of the trust we place in our close family members as we grow up. Precisely because there is no instinctual drive that forbids incest. An educated one must be enforced. To prevent abuse of children and marital infidelity both. I think this argument far more than the genetic or religious argument carries weight. Not that I am knocking youre religion but you have admitted yourself that by default it is not a position everyone can relate to Smile

Aki Sora, Yosuga no Sora.

poilk92 wrote:

please don't pick and choose what you want to be fact i gave you three schools of thought thats it i never claimed that frued is the definitive word and also the most likely part was my personal opinion but it doesn't make the genetic issue that you chose to ignore any less valid. in-fact the genetic argument is the only one supported by facts the others are just idle intellectual theory

And we've already discussed in this thread that for the genetic risks aren't that significant, which is why I didn't think it needed to be repeated.

I don't mind it if it's approached intelligently like in Koi Kaze, Candy Boy, or Boku wa Imoto ni Koi o Suru. It's interesting enough but I wouldn't want to watch it on a frequent basis given the "ick" factor since I have sisters. Anime smallmouth + sweatdrop

Getting back to last year's actual content in the thread-- Razz

Guess I'm the only one who read the header and pictured the, erm....sort-of version in UY Ep. #154. (And Shinobu's expression is understandable.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpxOWbhW8o4 (5:06)

It's was weird the first couple time I saw brother/sister lover undertones in anime series. It's still weird and I don't know why it's included but I've learned to ignore it. One of the last series that had that that I can remember was Kujibiki Unbalanced.

Dorcas_Aurelia wrote:

poilk92 wrote:

please don't pick and choose what you want to be fact i gave you three schools of thought thats it i never claimed that frued is the definitive word and also the most likely part was my personal opinion but it doesn't make the genetic issue that you chose to ignore any less valid. in-fact the genetic argument is the only one supported by facts the others are just idle intellectual theory

And we've already discussed in this thread that for the genetic risks aren't that significant, which is why I didn't think it needed to be repeated.

well I'm sorry but you just kind of made my point... You decided that "genetic risks aren't that significant" is a fact when it is a hotly disputed point at least and a falsehood at worst. A child born to a brother and a sister is twice as likely to have a chromosomal defect (such as down syndrome). And lets not forget about recessive genetic diseases like Cystic fibrosis sickle cell anemia or muscular dystrophy. Which are hundreds of times more likely to appear in an incestuous couple. The genetic risks are significant, please don't ignore it because it doesn't suit the narrative you wish to present. And before you get to upset I'm not attacking you or even your argument in anyway i just disapprove of your presentation

Consuming alcohol or smoking while pregnant also produce massively disproportionate risks of developmental defects, and while both of those things are vigorously discouraged, I'm pretty sure neither of them are outright illegal*. We're also going on the assumption that procreation is an inevitable outcome of an incestuous relationship, but it doesn't have to be. What, then, is the rationale against a childless incestuous couple?

*unless the mother is below the legal age for consuming those substances.

Quote:

What, then, is the rationale against a childless incestuous couple?

I believe I have already mentioned the strongest argument. That it breaks the trust you usually have in youre family members. And when someone is growing up they need that. They need people they can trust implicitly without worrying about the person having some sort of hidden romantic agenda. Still that is an ideal of our society and may not work for others. I also disagree that birth control can be totally relied apon. Perhaps at first but people's urge for offspring is STRONG. Eventually "accidents" would happen. If one where to legislate for legal incest one of the stipulations would probably have to be sterilisation. Let them adopt if they truly wish to raise children lord knows there are enough orphans about. However once the couple are about 18 and they agree to undergo sterilisation. Then what they do is their business I guess. I mean frankly I find golden showers "disgusting" but I wouldn't judge those who like them and do it harmlessly behind closed doors. I don't really see why incest shouldn't be the same once it's danger factors are removed.

Kruszer wrote:

I don't mind it if it's approached intelligently like in Boku wa Imoto ni Koi o Suru

Considering the OAV rushed through all of its developments with the siblings in Boku wa Imouto ni Koi o Suru making characters seem pretty hollow (especially in the case of the always stern brother), I wouldn't exactly compare it to something like Koi Kaze.

Eh? I don't remember it being like that. It certainly wasn't as Shallow as Aki Sora or it's sequel.

Forum - View topic
Incest in anime.

That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime: The Ways of Monster Nation Manga Ends Due to Artist's Health

Madoka Magica: Magia Exedra Smartphone Game Announced for 2024

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

The ANN Aftershow - What Anime Should You Watch Part 2 (Spring 2024)

Classroom of the Elite Season 3 Anime Series Review

This Week in Games - Nintendo Indies Showcase 2024

The Best Weapons in BLUELOCK to Build The Perfect Team

INTERVIEW: Small-Town Horror Comes to Life in Masaaki Ninomiya's GANNIBAL Manga

Forum - View topicIncest in anime.

Forum

Forum - View topic
Incest in anime.