Register to reply

Which one is worse? Incest (consenting) or unequal sex.

by Ahmed Abdullah
Tags: consenting, incest, unequal, worse
Share this thread:
Ahmed Abdullah
#1
Jan5-09, 03:10 AM
P: 183
Which one you think to be worse.
1. Incest between two consenting adults (of equivalent age). Like between uncle and niece of similiar ages.
2. Unequal sex between related or unrelated pair (it doesn't matter really and may also include incest). Here I am considering extreme cases like sex between 50 year old man and 10 years old girl.
Phys.Org News Partner Social sciences news on Phys.org
Violence rates can be halved in just 30 years, say leading experts
Power isn't enough: Study reveals the missing link for effective leadership
Persian Gulf states have new role to play in Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution
berkeman
#2
Jan6-09, 07:14 PM
Mentor
berkeman's Avatar
P: 41,320
Quote Quote by Ahmed Abdullah View Post
Which one you think to be worse.
1. Incest between two consenting adults (of equivalent age). Like between uncle and niece of similiar ages.
2. Unequal sex between related or unrelated pair (it doesn't matter really and may also include incest). Here I am considering extreme cases like sex between 50 year old man and 10 years old girl.
Your question is stated very poorly. First of all, an Uncle and a Neice will not be of similar ages. An Aunt and Uncle might, but a Neice will generally be significantly younger than an Uncle.

Second, your 10 year old age example falls under the term "Statutory Rape" in much of the developed world. Although at that young an age, it may also be considered child molestation.

If you are asking about sex between consenting adults, then the relative ages don't really matter that much, IMO.
NoMoreExams
#3
Jan6-09, 07:45 PM
P: 626
Worse in what way? Assuming the niece and uncle are both of legal age and it's not forced or coerced in any way (highly unlikely) vs. consensual (for some meaning of consensual) sex between a minor (10 year old) and an adult (50 year old)? I would be closer to say incest is the lesser of 2 evils. There is a lot of overlap in the 2 cases you tried to describe but assuming we pick cases where they're mutually exclusive, I would be fine looking the other way as incestuous practices happen, once again assuming consensually, than a pre-teen getting molested by a much older man. In reality, if there is incest going on in the form of uncle and niece, chances are the niece is under the age of consent and you get your overlap. Probably one of worst ways to traumatize a child is through his/her parents. Parents can do a lot of good and can also do a lot of damage (without sexual acts). If you throw in a parent (whether or not it's incest in the true form of the word for example it could be her stepdad) having sexual interaction with the child, it becomes a LOT worse to the point of being an unforgivable act.

vanesch
#4
Jan7-09, 04:40 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236
Which one is worse? Incest (consenting) or unequal sex.

As long as it is dirty, it's good (who said that again ?)

Seriously, the frowning upon incest is probably related to the fact that incestual reproduction gives poor results after a while. If it is just a matter of enjoying sex, and there is no relationship of authority (like parent and child), then I don't see what's fundamentally wrong with it (as long as we are talking about consenting adults).
Ejderha
#5
Jan10-09, 09:29 AM
P: 16
When a child is involved it's always completely another issue. Adults can do whatever they want, as long as it's consentual of course. But personally, even the idea of somebody sexually involved with a relative by blood sounds disgusting to me. In my country there are people getting married their cousins, mostly by force but sometimes also by love. How can you even see a relative in that way let alone getting married? Uff!
NoMoreExams
#6
Jan10-09, 10:24 AM
P: 626
Quote Quote by Ejderha View Post
When a child is involved it's always completely another issue. Adults can do whatever they want, as long as it's consentual of course. But personally, even the idea of somebody sexually involved with a relative by blood sounds disgusting to me. In my country there are people getting married their cousins, mostly by force but sometimes also by love. How can you even see a relative in that way let alone getting married? Uff!
Just to play devil's advocate but how is it different than marrying a good friend for example? Or let's say you've never met your cousin, no one even told you who it was then 20 years down the line you find out, would you stop loving that person?
snipez90
#7
Jan10-09, 12:57 PM
P: 1,104
Besides the biological implications of incest (potential child receiving two recessive alleles possibly leading to debilitating disease), there doesn't seem to be any moral objection to me. I don't think I've heard anyone pinpoint what is so immoral about it. Sure some people think that it's "disgusting" and certainly society has placed a taboo, albeit a rather arbitrary one, on the topic.

But really if you want to have sex with a sibling, how is that different from having sex with a peer (it may be easier to imagine NoMoreExam's scenario, but what I'm asking is the same thing)? Ignoring the biological implications for a moment (for the moment, assume fully reliable birth control), is there something morally wrong with having sex with someone who shares your genetic code?

Perhaps the general issue is more difficult. But as for you specific question, I think it might be difficult to determine if the younger participant is really consenting. If both participants consented, I don't see a huge difference in 1 and 2.
vanesch
#8
Jan10-09, 01:10 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236
Quote Quote by snipez90 View Post
but what I'm asking is the same thing)? Ignoring the biological implications for a moment (for the moment, assume fully reliable birth control), is there something morally wrong with having sex with someone who shares your genetic code?
That's why I only have sex with Vogons
We don't share any genetic code...

(hope my wife doesn't see this post
arildno
#9
Jan10-09, 02:45 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by snipez90 View Post
Besides the biological implications of incest (potential child receiving two recessive alleles possibly leading to debilitating disease), there doesn't seem to be any moral objection to me. I don't think I've heard anyone pinpoint what is so immoral about it. Sure some people think that it's "disgusting" and certainly society has placed a taboo, albeit a rather arbitrary one, on the topic.

But really if you want to have sex with a sibling, how is that different from having sex with a peer (it may be easier to imagine NoMoreExam's scenario, but what I'm asking is the same thing)? Ignoring the biological implications for a moment (for the moment, assume fully reliable birth control), is there something morally wrong with having sex with someone who shares your genetic code?
Not really. On the other hand, it is overwhelmingly likely that it isn't a disembodied, arbitrary "society" that can be regarded as the ultimate source on the wide-spread revulsion, and ban, on incest. "Don't have sex with somebody you grew up with" can be regarded as a Darwinian adaptation in order to limit deteriation of genetic quality.
snipez90
#10
Jan10-09, 03:05 PM
P: 1,104
Ok I probably did not phrase my intentions clearly. Besides reduced genetic quality, what other moral objections are there? I realize the biological implications of having the child, but assuming for instance that birth control can be perfected, is incest still amoral?
NoMoreExams
#11
Jan10-09, 03:07 PM
P: 626
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
Not really. On the other hand, it is overwhelmingly likely that it isn't a disembodied, arbitrary "society" that can be regarded as the ultimate source on the wide-spread revulsion, and ban, on incest. "Don't have sex with somebody you grew up with" can be regarded as a Darwinian adaptation in order to limit deteriation of genetic quality.
So I shouldn't have sex with my childhood friends?
Monique
#12
Jan10-09, 03:29 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Monique's Avatar
P: 4,642
Quote Quote by snipez90 View Post
Besides reduced genetic quality, what other moral objections are there?
I should point out that the reduced genetic quality of children from cousins is greatly exaggerated. There is indeed an increased risk for congenital defects, but it only increase slightly.

Quote Quote by Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors
The prohibitions against cousin marriages are not based on empirical biological research or genetic theory (Ottenheimer, 1996).
[..] The offspring of first cousin unions are estimated to have about a 1.72.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...f1204d36a&pi=1
arildno
#13
Jan10-09, 06:57 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by snipez90 View Post
Ok I probably did not phrase my intentions clearly. Besides reduced genetic quality, what other moral objections are there?
"Moral" objection??
It is nothing of the kind!
Who says our morality ought to be determined by suggestions given by our selfish genes?
I realize the biological implications of having the child, but assuming for instance that birth control can be perfected, is incest still amoral?
No, it is not. But precisely because the felt discomfort at the phenomenon of incest is deeply rooted in biology, that means it will be a recurring discomfort for any foreseeable future of mankind.
While our moral vision might develop to the point where we won't punish the tiny percentage who willingly engage in such acts (and it will remain a tiny percentage!), that discomfort will remain whether we like it or not. We need not act upon it, though.
334dave
#14
May2-09, 10:00 PM
P: 56
Quote Quote by snipez90 View Post
Besides the biological implications of incest .. there doesn't seem to be any moral objection to me. I don't think I've heard anyone pinpoint what is so immoral about it. Sure some people think that it's "disgusting" and certainly society has placed a taboo, albeit a rather arbitrary one, on the topic.

But really if you want to have sex with a sibling, how is that different from having sex with a peer ... Ignoring the biological implications for a moment ..., is there something morally wrong with having sex with someone who shares your genetic code?

Perhaps the general issue is more difficult. But as for you specific question, I think it might be difficult to determine if the younger participant is really consenting. If both participants consented, I don't see a huge difference in 1 and 2.
i have heard the thought snip' suggests
voiced before and i could not sustain an debate
as the opposing voice ...
i feel the main "wrong" is when a immature, uniformed or unwilling person is involved..
other wise .. from having worked in a transplant lab
that many were not realy bro or sis.. or related at all..
i seen too many cases were mother was not the bio mother!

this was explained as nun nurses putting sickly babies with well to do
mothers so that it would receive care ...
so it is not bio that has the fault with incest, it is society..
Jack21222
#15
May3-09, 07:45 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by berkeman View Post
First of all, an Uncle and a Neice will not be of similar ages. An Aunt and Uncle might, but a Neice will generally be significantly younger than an Uncle.
Generally, yes, but not always. My father and his nephew are roughly the same age. I believe he has a niece just slightly younger than him as well, but I don't know her age. Since my father was the baby of the family, I've got several cousins far older than myself.

I have one female cousin significantly older than I, but I don't know her age. However, I know HER daughter is approximately my age, and I was hitting on the daughter at our grandma's funeral. I guess she's what, my second cousin? Cousin twice removed? I don't know...

I used the pick up line "You know, if we weren't related..." Didn't work. :-p
skeptic2
#16
May3-09, 08:18 AM
P: 1,822
"Besides the biological implications of incest (potential child receiving two recessive alleles possibly leading to debilitating disease),..." -Snipez90

"I should point out that the reduced genetic quality of children from cousins is greatly exaggerated. There is indeed an increased risk for congenital defects, but it only increase slightly." -Monique

My understanding is that in order for incest to have a significant negative effect, the alleles involved must be both rare and recessive. If not rare the genetic defect would occur commonly without incest; if not recessive the defect would occur if only one partner had the defect.

Furthermore it could be argued that anything that causes a defective allele to be realized in offspring REDUCES the frequency of that allele as it reduces the likelihood that the offspring will have children.
sylas
#17
May3-09, 08:20 AM
Sci Advisor
sylas's Avatar
P: 1,750
Quote Quote by Monique View Post
I should point out that the reduced genetic quality of children from cousins is greatly exaggerated. There is indeed an increased risk for congenital defects, but it only increase slightly.
I can't resist when this topic comes up.

My brother married his full cousin. The father of the bride was the brother of the father of the groom. They celebrated their twentieth anniversary a couple of years ago, and they have two daughters. Apart from being unusually smart and beautiful, the girls are otherwise entirely normal.

Yes, it's legal. And their advice on children was that the additional risk was small, given that there are no other known cases of consanguinity in our family. It's when there's a history of inbreeding that the problems start to be more significant.
334dave
#18
May3-09, 11:30 AM
P: 56
Quote Quote by sylas View Post
I can't resist when this topic comes up.
...Apart from being unusually smart and beautiful, the girls are otherwise entirely normal.
.
ah this shows that wonderful bennies can also be expressed !
my daughter [[at 16 in her first year of collage]] said that lower intelligence
people marry lower intel people and have a lot of kids from lack of thinking ahead..
this in contrasts to that for most the history of man
it was the smartest ones that survived to have a lot of kids!
her take was that there will become a smart class of fewer people and a
growing class of dumb and dumber...
at least in developed countries..
ahh.. as they used to say..
its in the breading...


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Torque change of a rod with unequal masses Introductory Physics Homework 5
Unequal Gravity Astronomy & Astrophysics 1
Rape and Incest General Discussion 38
Incest. Does it really produce retards? Biology 8