♡The Moon Will Show the Way....♡

incest is not inherently damaging whatsoever as long as its consensual. there is zero scientific evidence that consensual incest is damaging. NONE. of course, incestuous abuse absolutely exists and is extremely damaging to the victims of it, but what i am talking about is consensual relationships between adults.

before you call me insane, here:

in an article by clare kasemset from stanford university, she states that one of the main (and only) scientific reasons that incest is illegal is that "the offspring of partners with a high level of consanguinity are more likely to have birth defects". however, this is eugenics: disabled people's children are also very likely to have children with birth defects, and anyone really could potentially have children with birth defects. this argument is simply that incestuous relationships should be illegal so that birth defects cease to exist. keep in mind, the definition of eugenics is "to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"; in essence, make sure that the only people born are "desirable", which would include being able-bodied. kasemset goes on to explain that "the act of incestuous sexual intercourse does not cause harm". incest does not inherently cause harm. the only reasons people give for the illegalization of incestuous relationships are eugenics and the potentially offensiveness of it due to the fact that "the vast majority of people in this country have deep-seated beliefs that incest is immoral".

article source: https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/137/35/615

in an article by maria campo redondo and gabriel andrade, they state that "incest represents a risk, but this is not reason enough to illegalize incest". this is because "other circumstances of sexual intercourse may lead to similar risks, and yet, such practices are not illegal". think of how AIDs is used to say that homosexuality should be illegal, how the possibility of miscarriage is used to say that people should only be getting pregnant at young ages, how the possibility of disabled children is used to say that disabled people shouldnt be having children: all of these are arguments that rely on nothing but "disability should be eradicated". ableism is so extremely ingrained in our society that people constantly search for the cure to every disability so that they wont have to deal with disabled people existing. i have had friends who have been told "your children will be disabled though!!!!! 😥" for being disabled just like those who are in incestuous relationships have. you should be allowed to have a child as long as you or someone else is capable of taking care of them, no matter if that child is disabled or not - a child potentially being disabled is not a morally wrong thing. as the authors of this article say, the reasons why incest is illegal "do not relate to public health and genetic risks".

article source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phil.12332

in a paper by jeff sebo, he states that "incest increases the incidence of inherited genetic diseases by about three percent". three percent. that is only three out of every hundred children born out of incestuous relationships. the argument of incest increasing disabilities is not only founded on eugenics, but founded on a very small statistic - especially compared to the fact that the probability of an autistic person have an autistic child is, on average, 3.45%. it is no different from any genetically disabled person having a child. advocating for incest to be illegal based on the possibility of disabled children is no different from advocating for disabled people to be sterilized.

he also explains that family is not dramatically different from any other relationship, and that there "are numerous important relationships in our lives—some of which are based on blood, others of which are not—and it is ridiculous to assume that our family members, whoever they may be, are necessarily our emotional centers". for many, many people, friends can even more important than family, or family can seem much more similar to friendly dynamics than typical family dynamics. the argument of families is also very often used against queer people by saying that it ruins the inherent family dynamics that are supposedly present, when in reality, families all function very differently and many people see their siblings or cousins as more like friends than how families are typically portrayed. as the author says: "no relevant moral distinction neatly separates our family relations from the other relationships in our lives".

he also explains that many people claim that incest "turn[s] out badly frequently enough to warrant a categorical ban". incestuous relationships are often abusive ones, this is very evident. however, "the outcome of our test will depend largely on how we run it". if we only ask abuse victims what their experience was (as many, many articles do), we will come to the conclusion that it is all abusive. only looking at people who were children abused by adult family members is not looking at the effects of incest, but looking at the effects of child abuse. yes, there may be a lack of scientific evidence for incest being good - but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there are many, many person experiences from people. on top of that, "those who breach the taboo are branded as outsiders, they suffer the effects of social ostracism, and since others misinterpret this suffering as caused by the act and not the label, they are used as evidence in support of the taboo". if someone is in an incestuous relationship, they will be hated by everyone, which will lead to them being depressed and possibly suicidal - not because of the incest itself, but because of how its treated.

first off, i acknowledge that you have fair points, quite a few actually. first of all, the concept of incest is very much more heavily demonized than it really needs to be. i would like to assume this is not only due to the stigma around it being a paraphilia but also because of history showing the effects of long-term inbreeding, and how it caused intense health risks for individuals. i agree that there are likely many circumstances where the same family dynamic does not apply to individuals who would be blood relatives, such as for example cousins who see themselves more as friends like you said. i would also like to add the fact that some forms of incest are not directly genetically harmful, such as a pair of adopted siblings, something i cannot remember if you mentioned.

i do agree that it is definitely a strange double standard for incestuous relationships to be criminalized due to the reason of "a possibility child comes out disabled." i would like to add the fact that it also paves the way for someone with very bad-faith intentions to attempt to, as you alluded to, criminalize disabled people having children as well.

in doing my own reading on this, i found a quote by martin o'reilly, stating, "indeed, it’s worth noting that with respect to huntington’s disease — a distressing, impairing brain disorder — if one parent has it, there’s a 50 percent chance any child he/she has will also be born with the fatal disorder. But if we don’t punish those carrying defective genes from having children, why then should we punish incestuous partners? if we’re not prepared to prevent carriers of congenital disorders from having children —or, for that matter, having sex — then it seems quite arbitrary and discriminatory to only punish incestuous partners." i think it's a pretty well-stated commentary on this phenomenon and the double-standard enforced here. i'm not going to make commentary on the ethics of attempting to stop anyone from having children who are disabled or who may be disabled, simply because it is a highly complex issue that i am not one side on. i can recognize points on both sides that are well spoken, and i can see people on both sides having genuinely good-faith opinions on the matter.

however, i would not use the word eugenics here. i feel as if that may be too heavy a word to be using in this situation, as eugenics has been used as part of a collection of ideologies used to systemically discriminate against and even genocide individuals before, which i would not like to compare the act of incest to. i feel as if that waters down the suffering victims of eugenics have gone through.

my original arguments were for the unhealthy power dynamic between individuals who have grown up as family members, but... there is no evidence i can find of that power dynamic other than in fringe situations. i have only seen criticism of your reference of "destroying a family dynamic" or "emotional harm to the other family members," and commentary proving the exact opposite, or commentary on incestuous abuse, or incest not practiced by two consenting adults (see: child abuse). in fact, in the abstract of a book i found legitimately criticizing incest as it would harm the family dynamic, the author directly states "that being said, i argue that there is insufficient legal justification for all consensual, adult incest to be criminalised. i examine four potential arguments in favour of consensual, adult incest being illegal, and conclude that none of them succeeds in justifying a total legal prohibition against it."

turning back to martin, who puts it in a way that really puts it into perspective for me, specifically when he talks about an explanation by vera bergelson, detailing "the legal scholar vera bergelson points out this argument is both overbroad and redundant. it’s overbroad in the sense that it applies to cases where power dynamics, abuse, or exploitation do not exist. (speaking of which, we don’t prohibit nonincestuous adult relationships merely because one partner is older, richer, or has more social status than the other). the argument is also redundant as there are already statutes directed at child abuse and statutory rape, as well as sexual exploitation or violence (irrespective of the age of the victim). the sexual acts between relations here would be immoral not because they are incestuous, but because they would amount to rape, violence or exploitation; we already regard such behaviour as wrong, independent of whether or not incest occurred." honestly if i could quote his entire breakdown of it, i would. i'll try not to, though.

while i would love to treat this going into this with the passion of a thousand suns throwing out proof that it's actually really terrible and you are So Stupid To Believe That.... well, first of all, this was something written in complete good faith with cited scholarly sources and second of all i don't do that usually lol. and third of all... there really is no evidence! i would love if someone could pop into this and give some articles that disprove op and i's statements in defense of consensual incest, i've found that every article i've seen talking about it in a negative light have been

only speaking of incest between father and daughter, especially in cases of csa. paints all father-daughter relationships as the father directly asserting dominance over the daughter (which in most cases may be the case) and paints any other situations, like mother-son incest, as either the woman being the victim (denying the concept that women can be aggressors and/or rapists and that men can be victims of rape) or somehow the son is the problem.

treating sibling incest as somehow the fault of the father for not being "dominant enough" in the family, therefore causing the brother to be the source of power. repeat the earlier statements about father-daughter relationships.

ignoring the concept of incestuous relationships between, say, cousins, or aunt and nephew.

for these, i would check out this article which in the preview breaks down parts of weinberg's incest behavior. additionally, if you feel privy, feel free to do as i did and browse google scholar attempting to find one link to an abstract or synopsis that isn't in defense of consensual adult incest. seriously, it's more difficult than you would think.

i... have had every argument i had dismantled, honestly. i had one about the increased amount of inbreeding that would come from the decriminalization and normalization of incest, but guess what: good old martin coming back again. "this might be a fair objection if there was good reason to assume the decriminalisation of adult incest would lead to a significant rise of inbreeding. but as we know, there are already a small number of countries that currently don’t ban adult incest, and we’ve no reason to believe there are significant instances of inbreeding in those countries. there’s also evidence to suggest the practice will never become widespread: various studies have shown that people who live together in close proximity during early life become desensitised to future sexual attraction."

....so, yeah. op, you're right on this one! seriously, i invite anyone to try and disprove this in a way that a. cites evidence that is either as reputable as or more reputable than ours (hey, i'd take anything above a blog post lol), b. doesn't use "it's gross" as a reason, and c. doesn't inherently dismiss the concept that women can be aggressors or perpetuates the concept that all family dynamics have to be the Nuclear Family, Actually. hell, i'm lenient on that last one, that's an opinion you can have, even if i personally don't agree with it.

also, just to recap op's first commentary: this is not on the topic of sexual abuse. this is not attempting to erase the effect on incest on sexual abuse, or how victims of incest especially as children may experience large amounts of trauma relative to that. abuse is fucked up and bad, that isn't a hot take or anything. i recognize that abuse, especially sexual violence, especially sexual violence against a family member is really fucking bad. that being said, this is specifically referring to cases of consensual incestuous relationships between adults.