Genetic Sexual Attraction

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

Mostly came to mind after reading that story about that father and daughter who justified their liason with this. Is it ever right to commit incest?

[crazylegs]

Hell no, when you have sex with a non relative and gametes mix there is a wide mix of genes being fused together. If (for example) mother/son father/daughter have sex because half the genetic material from the child comes from the parent there is a much greater chance of recessive genetic conditions coming to the fore.

[anriana]

It says "attraction" not "irresistble urges." No, incest is not morally right.

[Boozy]

Eeeewwww! Ew ew ew ew ew!

What the hell is wrong with some people?!

[blas87]

People who are attracted to blood relatives need to be locked up in the mental ward and not let out until those feelings are gone.

Most children who are a result of incestual sex do not end up normal. Is that really fair to do to a child? Not to mention IF the child lives long enough, it will have to live with the fact that its parents are related and the ridicule....

Sorry for my passionate feelings but it's just disgusting and completely wrong. There are billions of people in this world. You do not need to be lusting after your relatives.

[anriana]

People who are attracted to blood relatives need to be locked up in the mental ward and not let out until those feelings are gone.

There is nothing wrong with being attracted, especially if it is actually genetic. It's only wrong if you act on it.

[Slytovhand]

I'm gonna go be a black sheep here.... :D baaaa


If you read that article, and also the link to the Westermark effect, you would come to the conclusion that your "ewwws" and "disgusts" and "completely wrongs" are indicative of the 'moral imperative' have come about because of the taboos now placed on such things.

Also, the article referred to 2 individual human beings (who just happen to share DNA and biological parents) who meet at some stage in their lives not knowing they actually share that DNA and connection. If we got past the taboo and eww yuck thought patterns, then we can start seeing it from a different perspective. What are those 2 people supposed to think and do now? Be disgusted with themselves, and consider themselves freaks? What about the children of such circumstances? Do we shun them? Do they get disowned? Perhaps, just to satisfy everyone else's sensibilities, they ought to be executed.. would that make things ok in the world again??

I'd also like to point something out else here as well... each and every single one of you reading this here is a product of this 'GSA'... just think back a few thousand years when a group of people were in a clan together which had very little contact with any other people. Everyone was directly or closely related to everyone else you met. Slowly - people moved, and clans expanded... but before that....???

Genetically... no, it's not something that nature wants to happen, not when there's an alternative. But it does make me curious in another way... how do you feel about other animals in the animal kingdom?? Cats are a fantastic example. Are they just as sick and disgusting?


(yeah - I love questions about 'morals'... everyone is always on a higher standing than everyone else who disagrees... and if you don't, you've got something wrong with you :D)


Slyt

[Boozy]

Genetically... no, it's not something that nature wants to happen, not when there's an alternative. But it does make me curious in another way... how do you feel about other animals in the animal kingdom?? Cats are a fantastic example. Are they just as sick and disgusting?

Cats are (mostly) able to breed with close relatives without their progeny having any major birth defects. Even then, cats will instinctively choose to breed outside their family if given the option.

Genetic variation is a good thing, and our innate aversion to incest is also a very good thing. I won't apologize for having an "Ew!" reaction to the thought of incest, when this reaction is completely natural and serves the evolution of the species.

That said, if these two don't plan to procreate, I guess they can do what they want. As long as they don't have kids, no one else gets hurt. So live and let live.

[Giggle Goose]

When I read that article, all I could think of was that book "Flowers in the Attic" where the kids get locked up in the attic and the brother and sister start to become attracted to each other. :eek: Then they referenced it. Weird.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It says "attraction" not "irresistble urges."
Exactly my thoughts... I remember reading an article where a woman said about her liason with her half brother, "You can't help who you fall in love with." Maybe not, but no-one says you have to act on it. I know it's a big stretch, but you could say the same about pedophilia or bestality really. Just cuz an adult man is attracted to a ten year old girl is no reason for him to follow it up by grooming her for sex. The same goes for attraction to a close relative. Get psychiatric help and get it out of your system.

[Greenday]

If they didn't know they were relatives, then no, not ew. I won't fault to people because they just plain didn't know.

Now, if two people, fully knowing their relations, start at it, then yes, I'll have a problem with it.

[BlaqueKatt]

Now, if two people, fully knowing their relations, start at it, then yes, I'll have a problem with it.


Then you must have a serious problem with the Egyptians, and several groups that believe "cousins are made for cousins", or anyone that was previously in the mafia-they intermarried to keep the money "in the family".

And any Christians in here may want to re-read the story of Lot, who had sex with both of his daughters(and had children with both of them) after leaving Sodom-and that was considered perfectly ok....

[the_std]

But the ancient Egyptians, nor biblical-era Christians, didn't know that interbreeding caused genetic defects in the resultant offspring.

[Greenday]

You can't fault people for ignorance, unless they are willfully ignorant. So I will not fault those who know nothing about the harms of incest. BUT, for those who do know the harms of it, and continue to practice incest, I will have problems with.

[anriana]

And any Christians in here may want to re-read the story of Lot, who had sex with both of his daughters(and had children with both of them) after leaving Sodom-and that was considered perfectly ok....

Christians should reread that story anyways, since he offered them up to a hoarde of men for gang rape. Righteous indeed.

[Greenday]

What's with knocking on Christians? You guys do realize gang-rape and incest aren't parts of their religion? It has nothing to do with being a Christian...

[IDrinkaRum]

How about the Royal Families of Europe, back in the Middle Ages and so forth? Phillip II of Spain took as his 4th wife, his own niece! After a few generations of interbreeding, the royal families should have seen the results of their marrying in the family. However, because Spain & Portugal were isolated for such a long time, I do understand the interbreeding. But after Don Carlos II of Spain? Yeah, fortunately, the Hapsburg line started to fan out/die out, so some of that problem went away ... eventually.

[anriana]

What's with knocking on Christians? You guys do realize gang-rape and incest aren't parts of their religion? It has nothing to do with being a Christian...

It is "knocking on Christians" to point out stories from their Scripture?

[Greenday]

It is "knocking on Christians" to point out stories from their Scripture?

I really didn't see how it had a point for the thread. I mean, what does the scripture really have to do with being a Christian? Christians don't live their lives by how everyone in the bible acted. In fact, the bible is meant to learn lessons from. The way it was said, it just seemed like it was an attack on Christianity, saying that because it is in their scripture, that's what Christians do.

[Plaidman]

Lot offered his daughters to save the angels from rape. After all, homosexuality is a /far/ worst crime then rape. ( End Sarcasim)

Anyway. meh. Whatever. I will never get mad or be disgusted by people who fall in love. Love is the greatest treasure in the world, and you get spiteful and disgusted by it? So what if its /wrong/ in ones eyes. It really is the same as Homosexuality. People get disgusted by that. Beastitly is connected. Pedophile is the same. The difference between the three, is that mutual incest is, well, mutual. Both adults ether know or don't, and accept it. Beast and Child, however, only one would have the mentality to agree.

Some of you, are starting to sound like the hate crimes of past, where its ether against god, or /morally/ wrong. They are in love. Do you all really want that to be crushed and destroyed?

Then there are those times, where two kids are given up for adoption. Thirty years later, they meet, and fall in love. Nether of them know. They get married. They have kids. When they are 80 years old or whatever, they finally found the truth. Now they have great grand kids, and their daughter is the one who brought mankind to Pluto. (It was hot. We needed ice....).
Are you going to shun them, and spit on their grave?

~Plaidman. Awaiting flames and counterants, and most likely, ignornation.

[anriana]

I mean, what does the scripture really have to do with being a Christian?

Seriously?

[the_std]

~Plaidman. Awaiting flames and counterants, and most likely, ignornation.

I think that anyone who finds their very attraction gross is a little closed-minded. But if the couple decides to have kids, then the gloves are off. Their child has a much higher chance of being genetically disadvantaged, and the poor kid doesn't have a say in it.

You mentioned adoption. If they're really that in love that they want kids, why not adopt? I know, I know, it's harder than people say it is, but it would still be kinder to a child than conceiving one who has a high risk of being disabled.

Or a surrogate parent. There are options.

As for the Pluto people... Well, they didn't know until it was far too late. Can't fault them for that. However, if their daughter purposefully has kids with their son, then yes... It comes back to the "kid not having a choice" thing.

[AFPheonix]

Lot offered his daughters to save the angels from rape. After all, homosexuality is a /far/ worst crime then rape. ( End Sarcasim)

Anyway. meh. Whatever. I will never get mad or be disgusted by people who fall in love. Love is the greatest treasure in the world, and you get spiteful and disgusted by it? So what if its /wrong/ in ones eyes. It really is the same as Homosexuality. People get disgusted by that. Beastitly is connected. Pedophile is the same. The difference between the three, is that mutual incest is, well, mutual. Both adults ether know or don't, and accept it. Beast and Child, however, only one would have the mentality to agree.

Some of you, are starting to sound like the hate crimes of past, where its ether against god, or /morally/ wrong. They are in love. Do you all really want that to be crushed and destroyed?

Then there are those times, where two kids are given up for adoption. Thirty years later, they meet, and fall in love. Nether of them know. They get married. They have kids. When they are 80 years old or whatever, they finally found the truth. Now they have great grand kids, and their daughter is the one who brought mankind to Pluto. (It was hot. We needed ice....).
Are you going to shun them, and spit on their grave?

~Plaidman. Awaiting flames and counterants, and most likely, ignornation.

Actually this is a very insightful post.
And to be honest, the risk for potentially increasing the chance of recessive genetic diseases doesn't really increase a huge amount, at least at the first set of inbreeding couples, since social mores for preventing that have kept us more or less pretty heterogeneous.
Of course with successive line breeding you increase the risk geometrically....

My only concern with incest, at least in the case of parent and child, is that one of the participants is coming from a position of control and possible coercion. I don't think true consent can happen in those cases.

[BlaqueKatt]

I really didn't see how it had a point for the thread.


<reviews thread>
Wow silly me we weren't talking about incest then?

Incest laws in this country have largely religious origins. In England, incest was punishable only in ecclesiastical courts, which ostensibly applied the law of Leviticus prohibiting persons more closely related than fourth cousins to marry.(from this article (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/))




But if the couple decides to have kids, then the gloves are off. Their child has a much higher chance of being genetically disadvantaged, and the poor kid doesn't have a say in it.

Wow I guess I should be punished then, you see I have Autism, any child I have has a 25% chance of having autism. I do have a child, he didn't have a say in being born. A report from the Journal of Genetic Counseling indicates that cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of have children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples.

forgot to add with direct brother-sister the 2% chance doubles to a whopping 4%

Saying someone shouldn't have a child that may have issues as far as genetic disorders. I guess I should have asked you before having my son. Anyone with mental ilnesses better not have kids-some of them(schizophrenia is one-which often doesn't even show up until mid to late 20'S), give the child up to a 50% chance of inheriting the disorder. What you're proposing is eugenics. I would gladly take only a 2% higher chance rather than a 1 in 4 chance that I have now. I'm sure my friend with a schizophrenic father would rather have a 2% chance rather than the 50-50 she has now.




and we do have genetic testing now that can determine what may be transmitted.




oh and Plaidman-you win one internet.

[the_std]

What you're proposing is eugenics.

Actually, I'm not proposing anything. I suggested that incestual couples try different methods of having kids, but I'm certainly not saying, "Outlaw incest!" or anything along those lines. I was merely explaining why I find it somewhat reprehensible, and why others might too.

Y'know, I'd thought about the other disabilities that can be passed on genetically, but declined to comment because almost every person in this dear wide world has one. Again, I never said that these people could not have kids, merely that they might consider not having kids for the sake of the kids.

Oh, and I never actually thought of cousin + cousin as incest. In fact, I have two cousins who married before they knew they were cousins. They have two charming little girls who don't have anything wrong with them, as far as I can see. I was thinking more along the lines of dad + daughter or mom + son.

[Greenday]

I just don't see why Christians need to re-evaluate their beliefs because there's a story in the Bible involving incest. I don't know, maybe because to my church, we use the Bible as stories to teach us lessons, not to do exactly as everyone did. It just seems like you guys are saying that Christians have to be incestuous because it's in the Bible that some person did it.

[AFPheonix]

If you can find me a quote where someone said that Christians need to reevaluate their faith because of an OT story in this thread, then go for it. All people are saying is that incest has happened throughout history, including biblical times.

At most they are criticizing some Christians who never actually read their bibles and thus have an overly rosy view of the document.

[BlaqueKatt]

All people are saying is that incest has happened throughout history, including biblical times.


Pretty much-that and I find it interesting that incest laws are religiously based(see previous post), and that the separation of church and state is not being applied.

[Greenday]

And any Christians in here may want to re-read the story of Lot, who had sex with both of his daughters(and had children with both of them) after leaving Sodom-and that was considered perfectly ok....

The story doesn't suggest at all though that Christians should do that. It doesn't even hint towards incest being right. So why is it being pointed out as making Christians being hypocrites?

I wouldn't call these laws religiously based. There are a ton of people who are against it for non-religious reasons.

[BlaqueKatt]

I wouldn't call these laws religiously based. There are a ton of people who are against it for non-religious reasons.


read the law article I linked to-they are religiously based-ecclesiastical courts, which ostensibly applied the law of Leviticus---oddly that sounds like religion to me.

[Slytovhand]

Greenday, I'd say that the argument is something like this...

some people and society as a whole find incest is morally rephrehensible
This has been placed into law, following the ecclesiastical courts and the laws of Leviticus (just parroting BK here...)
Laws are designed for a society to reflect it's moral mores
Also within the Bible (which contains Leviticus and other books, upon which laws were based) are also stories in which incest is apparently condoned, if not sanctioned, by God

if something has apparently been sanctioned by God in the Holy Book, then it would be hypocritical to find something offensive about that action.

(if someone wants to clarify or alter what I said, please feel free!)

That's all.

To be honest, it falls into a similar vein as homosexuality of any type. The problem comes where although there have been changes in mores based on religion (in this case, particularly Christianity) is that things change. In the case of christianity, it comes down to what JC said, and how it actually relates to the OT. I've been of the opinion that JC said there is really only one law, and that is to treat everyone nicely - all the other stuff that was law before doesn't really apply anymore (eg - Leviticus stuff). But that's just me...:D

[powerboy]

Incest is truly morally wrong. Attraction isn't a choice. It is a feeling. Shocking, is it? People cannot help who they are attracted too. If someone is attracted to a family member, there is nothing wrong with that. It is only wrong when they act upon it.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Exactly. Like I said before; would it be right if a man was attracted to a ten year old girl and acted on that? Yet there are people here justifying incest, cuz of this so called helpless attraction. They do not have to act on it. They can choose to have psychiatric help.

[powerboy]

Exactly. Like I said before; would it be right if a man was attracted to a ten year old girl and acted on that? Yet there are people here justifying incest, cuz of this so called helpless attraction. They do not have to act on it. They can choose to have psychiatric help.


Exactly my point. Incest is never right. They can have psychiatric help, But there is some who is actually smart enough to realize that sleeping with said family member is wrong and will never think of them like that.

[Slytovhand]

What's the definition of 'wrong'... one that you can prove beyond any doubt (as in, anyone who cares to doubt it, for whatever reason??)

[protege]

Incest is never right. They can have psychiatric help, But there is some who is actually smart enough to realize that sleeping with said family member is wrong and will never think of them like that.

...and the ones who aren't smart enough usually end up on the Jerry Springer or Maury Povich shows :rolleyes:

[AFPheonix]

Explain why you feel it is wrong if both people are of age of consent and neither are in a power position over the other, and contraception is used successfully.

[DesignFox]

Well, it's odd how we would define right and wrong. Back in the day, cousins would marry...there was nothing "wrong" about it.

Back in the day, girls were being married off and popping out babies by the age of 13 or 14, often to husbands a decade or more older than themselves. It wasn't "wrong" then.

I think what it comes down to is consent. In today's society, we all agree that children aren't adults until the age of 18 (at least in the US). Therefore, if both parties are of the age of consent, and neither co-erced the other, there shouldn't be anything "wrong" with it.

I think with the stigma attached, it would be wrong for the adults of such a relationship to have children. It puts the children in a terrible position, socially.

Personally, I think it's icky... there's something messed up about wanting to date your immediate family...

[blas87]

Back in the day, so to speak, marriage and having children was between close relatives to keep the blood "pure".

Nowadays it's been proven that children conceived from two parents with too similar of DNA end up mentally retarded and with lots of health problems.

Keeping the blood "pure"? Ok....

[AFPheonix]

As was pointed out earlier, the initial risk of increased recessive defects only increases by about 2% or so, although that risk increases geometrically with more line-breeding, so to speak.
So one breeding pair of closely related people aren't that much more likely to turn out screwed up kids. Actually they have a far less chance of doing so than that one lady who had that weird brittle bone disease that was the result of a dominant allele who has been insisting on cranking out kids despite having already passed on her disability and increasing physical risk to herself and by extension of putting herself in danger, her already present children.

Being squicked out is not a good enough reason to not like the idea.

[Sylvia727]

Being squicked out is not a good enough reason to not like the idea.

Being squicked out is a great reason not to like the idea. Unless you meant something along the lines of "just because you don't like it isn't a good enough reason to pass judgement on other people." And I agree that personal preference is not a strong enough reason to affect other people. But based on all the reading I've done, I have enough evidence to decide for myself that anyone who practices incest has something broken. Yes, the definition of incest changes with culture, society, and science. But the jist of it remains.

If two incestuous people aren't hurting anyone, then it's not my place to speak up. I can pass judgement that they are not psychologically healthy, but so what?

[Slytovhand]

I think what it comes down to is consent. In today's society, we all agree that children aren't adults until the age of 18 (at least in the US). Therefore, if both parties are of the age of consent, and neither co-erced the other, there shouldn't be anything "wrong" with it.


"All agree" being defined as "the law in various parts of that country"... which does not necessarily represent the will of the people....


I can pass judgement that they are not psychologically healthy, but so what?

I presume you are a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist, then?

[AFPheonix]

Being squicked out is a great reason not to like the idea. Unless you meant something along the lines of "just because you don't like it isn't a good enough reason to pass judgement on other people." And I agree that personal preference is not a strong enough reason to affect other people. But based on all the reading I've done, I have enough evidence to decide for myself that anyone who practices incest has something broken. Yes, the definition of incest changes with culture, society, and science. But the jist of it remains.

If two incestuous people aren't hurting anyone, then it's not my place to speak up. I can pass judgement that they are not psychologically healthy, but so what?

Some people have different gross-out levels. Should injections be morally wrong because some people can't handle giving or receiving them? How about barn mucking? I know people get all squicked out about cleaning gelding's sheathes, which is why I save that chore for when there's no non-horse people around.
Why do you think an incestuous couple, providing they are of age of consent and do not hold a power position over each other, would be mentally ill?

[Sylvia727]

First of all, assume we're talking about Western culture. In other cultures, people may be raised with a different view of incest and/or sexuality. In Western culture, people are raised with a strong social taboo against incest. There's also scientific evidence supporting the Westermarck effect, which is the mechanism in the human brain that prevents sexual attraction towards members of one's own household. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#cite_note-Wolf170-1),

Consensual mutually desired adult incest is very rare

Given that, I can make the logical conclusion that people who engage in incest have something broken in their heads. It's not a value judgement, it's my personal application of the known facts to a certain situation. And no, I'm not a psychologist. I don't have to be to make judgements about my surroundings. If I intended to affect anyone else, then yes, I should probably be a trained and licensed therapist. But I don't need a degree in the subject matter to understand some of the basic premises.

[Slytovhand]

Just sticking with the argument presented... people who sit in caves on mountain tops to meditate on the meaning of life to achieve spiritual enlightenment are very rare as well - does that mean you would judge them to be psychologically unhealthy?

It was just that specific combination of words that was used - rather than the thought behind it, 'tis all.... Especially when you combine 'personal application' with a professional diagnosis.

But, on that same topic, you mention the Westermark effect (yes, I read it from a previous posting - or a link from a link from a previous posting...). What I would then find interesting is that someone could be considered broken or unhealthy because what would be considered a 'normal' response in a human doesn't happen to take effect with some people. Just that 'not statistically usual' now consititutes 'unhealthy'.

Also... step-siblings. What if kids are brought up with mum or dad's new partner's kids. The Westermark effect might take effect - or not. Is this an issue if those kids get together after living in each other's pockets for 15 years? I presume the answer from us all will be 'No - of course not, they're not actually related biologically". Which then leads to my question - why does biology have relevance in moral/ethical questions? And, from these 2 examples, does that mean that biology will always have moral or ethical significance??

[Sylvia727]

does that mean you would judge them to be psychologically unhealthy? <snip> Especially when you combine 'personal application' with a professional diagnosis.

Yes, I would judge them to be psychologically unhealthy. It's not intended to be a professional diagnosis, which is why I used the verb "judge" instead of "diagnose". I could also use the verbs "assume" or "believe", which would be less precise in my opinion but may communicate my meaning better to you.

Honestly, I don't care very much. If Bob goes through 8 or 10 beers every single night, then I can "judge" him to be an alcoholic, but so what? As long as he's not driving or hitting his kids, it's none of my business. If John and Jane are twins who love each other in the Biblical sense, but both are consenting adults, then I can "judge" them to be unhealthy, but so what? I don't think my opinion (and yes, this is just my opinion, derived from my interpretation of known facts) matters that much to them.

What I would then find interesting is that someone could be considered broken or unhealthy because what would be considered a 'normal' response in a human doesn't happen to take effect with some people. Just that 'not statistically usual' now consititutes 'unhealthy'.

I think it's more than just "a normal response". It's more than just biology. I don't think that a person engaging in incest in Western culture can be well-adjusted. Sex is so fundamental, and incest so incredibly taboo, that there's got to be something off-balance there. The incestuous taboos are a combination of biological and social influences. Not having the biological motivation makes one odd, or broken. But ignoring the social motivations is where I think the psychology comes in.

Also... step-siblings. What if kids are brought up with mum or dad's new partner's kids. The Westermark effect might take effect - or not. Is this an issue if those kids get together after living in each other's pockets for 15 years? I presume the answer from us all will be 'No - of course not, they're not actually related biologically".

I think it's an issue, anyway. If they became siblings at a young enough age, and I assume from your number of "15 years" that they're actually quite young, then they will develop the same as if they were biological siblings. If they meet at an old enough age, then it comes back to the question posed earlier, about genetic sexual attraction: if two relatives meet late in life and mate together, is that wrong? I think it could work for certain couples, since they have no innate reason to regard the other as taboo for mating purposes.

Which then leads to my question - why does biology have relevance in moral/ethical questions? And, from these 2 examples, does that mean that biology will always have moral or ethical significance??

I think that as long as human behavior follows primal drives such as lust and hunger, biology will have moral and ethical significance. But that's getting a bit too philosophical.

[Slytovhand]

<snip> I could also use the verbs "assume" or "believe", which would be less precise in my opinion but may communicate my meaning better to you.

Yes - but more accurate... :D




Honestly, I don't care very much. If Bob goes through 8 or 10 beers every single night, then I can "judge" him to be an alcoholic, but so what? As long as he's not driving or hitting his kids, it's none of my business. If John and Jane are twins who love each other in the Biblical sense, but both are consenting adults, then I can "judge" them to be unhealthy, but so what? I don't think my opinion (and yes, this is just my opinion, derived from my interpretation of known facts) matters that much to them.

Yes... I quite agree - but that's what this entire forum is about. Only rarely does a topic come up here which actually has bearing on those who get on and have a say. Thus, if I debate a particular point on a topic with you, it's got no great relevance to the outer world, but only on here... that's the fun bit about everyone having an opinion :p



I think it's more than just "a normal response". It's more than just biology. I don't think that a person engaging in incest in Western culture can be well-adjusted. Sex is so fundamental, and incest so incredibly taboo, that there's got to be something off-balance there. The incestuous taboos are a combination of biological and social influences. Not having the biological motivation makes one odd, or broken. But ignoring the social motivations is where I think the psychology comes in.

Ok - the meat and potatoes to this one...What relevance does 'taboo' really have? Realistically, I think, if 'taboo' is a 'real' phenomonon, and isn't merely shock value of something different, then it would also logically follow that 'morals' aren't absolute (as in, they do actually exist and have a true/false value - regardless of what we think), but are in fact purely relative to society and culture. If they are relative, then it also means that it is almost worthless to discuss them in any real way (other than mere historical, or sociological...).



I think it's an issue, anyway. If they became siblings at a young enough age, and I assume from your number of "15 years" that they're actually quite young, then they will develop the same as if they were biological siblings. If they meet at an old enough age, then it comes back to the question posed earlier, about genetic sexual attraction: if two relatives meet late in life and mate together, is that wrong? I think it could work for certain couples, since they have no innate reason to regard the other as taboo for mating purposes.


Yeah - 15 years was to mean they'd been together since young childhood, but are now adults, and effectively grow up as brother and sister. How about the kids next door?? (I presume Westermark says something about this?? I certainly haven't bothered looking....). Is Spiderman a bit of a perve for marrying Mary-Jane?? (ok - forgive if they weren't living next to each other for long enough..:p)

It does go back to the original idea of the taboo, and thus the moral question. Is the 'problem' with GSA that they are biologically directly related, or that they've known each other as young kids (before 6 years old, apparently). If it is about being related physically, it comes back to biology - and the only issue there is how it affects offspring... which has been shown to have only a 2% detrimental affect - which may be somewhat worse from, say, smoking or alcohol abuse.....




I think that as long as human behavior follows primal drives such as lust and hunger, biology will have moral and ethical significance. But that's getting a bit too philosophical.

Well... we are talking morals and ethics, so it is all philosophical....