Woman meets dad for first time. Now they're having a baby.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TommiR

TommiR

HowDroll said:
Eh, there's a difference to me between actively defending it ("yay, incest!") and defending their right to do what they want by saying it's not the government's place to tell them they can't. I'm not going to defend the Westboro Baptist Church for being a bunch of asshats, but I'm going to defend their right to asshattery.

Maybe it's just semantics.
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably semantics. Thanks for the clarification.
 
S

SeraRelm

Espy, you're going to find those power plays in many relationships, regardless of genetic relations. That's not to say it's right or wrong, but it does seem like just an excuse if that's the defining characteristic in someone's argument against the act.
 
Espy

Espy

Of course you will, but I think that that power dynamic in particular (parent/child) is probably at the root of most peoples discomfort even if it's expressed as "ew". I don't think it's one that should be ignored either, I think it's a perfectly valid reason to be concerned, although like I said, I don't know how much of it exists in a case like this which is... unusual to say the least.
 
S

SeraRelm

I'd think that's partially true, though a large part of it is likely the social stigma aspect of the act as well. It's ingrained into most societies that the act is abhorrent and thusly, many people find it so.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
I remember reading some journal articles when I was an undergrad in physical anthropology about incest taboo. Mathias would be able to speak more clearly on it, but it seems that it is present in many animal species. The evolutionary advantage of the "Ew" reaction is to increase the gene pool. Or if you look at it from a natural selection point of view, those who branched out were selected for.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Lots of women date someone they view at least partially as a father type figure, and no one bats an eye at that.
 
Azurephoenix

Azurephoenix

fade said:
I remember reading some journal articles when I was an undergrad in physical anthropology about incest taboo. Mathias would be able to speak more clearly on it, but it seems that it is present in many animal species. The evolutionary advantage of the "Ew" reaction is to increase the gene pool. Or if you look at it from a natural selection point of view, those who branched out were selected for.
Click to expand...

And the deleterious genes from incest were weeded out through natual selection. Though that doesn't really occur anymore.
 
S

SeraRelm

And as someone in no danger of running into that genetic issue personally, as well as being on the fringe of what society deems a proper relationship, perhaps the incest folks don't bother me as much. I don't think the human race is in danger of under-breeding at the moment.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

We might as well link to the Incest Taboo wiki page. I think most of us experience a little ickiness reading about stories like this. It is a combination of what Espy was saying (incest is generally associated with abuse) and a genetic predisposition to avoid inbreeding. That wiki article I linked is an interesting read and it suggests there is a strong cultural component to the taboo. Certainly American culture frowns on incest a great deal, and depictions of non-abusive incest in pop culture (pretty rare, really, but consider Game of Thrones) are intentionally meant to be provocative in a way that evokes negative feelings. It's tough to disentangle the culture and the genetics here, since there are few experiments you could conduct to test it.

So is it wrong? It depends on what your basis for morality is. If it is the bible, well, Espy could answer that better than I. I've always favored a morality based on survival of one's genetic group (a moral code which I won't go into great detail on). And it seems like this case would violate such a code. At the same time, it ensures those genes get passed on, so maybe it doesn't. Pretty murky, really. Even though figmentPez was reading a lot into the story, I suspect he is somewhat correct in assuming there are some psychological issues in play, maybe even something simple like depression or fear of abandonment, which makes it all that much murkier.
 
Adam

Adam

MindDetective said:
So is it wrong? It depends on what your basis for morality is. If it is the bible, well, Espy could answer that better than I. I've always favored a morality based on survival of one's genetic group (a moral code which I won't go into great detail on).
Click to expand...
 
S

SeraRelm

I expect there are psychological issues at play in most romantic relationships though.:p
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

Adam said:
Click to expand...
Do I have to?? Basically, I think of morality as derived from evolutionary pressures. The implications of this are that moral choices (murder, theft, incest, etc.) are strongest (in terms of taboos, for example) for oneself and one's immediate relatives, but drop off as you get further from your immediate genetic relationships. Obviously these are predispositions and not absolutes, as fratricide and the like still exist, meaning these predispositions can be overcome by circumstances. So "protecting one's own" is the general rule of morality. However, humans are all 99.xxx% related, so in fact our moral code extends to much of the human race rather easily. After that, it is not difficult (though less typical) to extend the same principles to other species. It then becomes merely a matter of in-group/out-group differences. If you consider all humans to be related (and thus, "your own"), then you will treat them with the moral code that pressures us towards preserving immediate family. Alternatively, consider when Europeans considered Native Americans and Africans as another species, or the racist treatment of black Americans post-slavery (and pre-slavery, for that matter). If you extend your inclusiveness to other species (thus empathizing with non-human animals) then that basic moral code extends ever further. Many do not throw their net so wide, though, so morality remains localized to immediate family (and friends, and community, but often not much beyond that...thus, war, etc.) And there you have it.
 
Adam

Adam

MindDetective said:
Do I have to?? Basically, I think of morality as derived from evolutionary pressures. The implications of this are that moral choices (murder, theft, incest, etc.) are strongest (in terms of taboos, for example) for oneself and one's immediate relatives, but drop off as you get further from your immediate genetic relationships. Obviously these are predispositions and not absolutes, as fratricide and the like still exist, meaning these predispositions can be overcome by circumstances. So "protecting one's own" is the general rule of morality. However, humans are all 99.xxx% related, so in fact our moral code extends to much of the human race rather easily. After that, it is not difficult (though less typical) to extend the same principles to other species. It then becomes merely a matter of in-group/out-group differences. If you consider all humans to be related (and thus, "your own"), then you will treat them with the moral code that pressures us towards preserving immediate family. Alternatively, consider when Europeans considered Native Americans and Africans as another species, or the racist treatment of black Americans post-slavery (and pre-slavery, for that matter). If you extend your inclusiveness to other species (thus empathizing with non-human animals) then that basic moral code extends ever further. Many do not throw their net so wide, though, so morality remains localized to immediate family (and friends, and community, but often not much beyond that...thus, war, etc.) And there you have it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. "My brother is my keeper" as a genetic characteristic using the "fear of The Other" baser instict to explain cultural animosity. Glad you expanded! (For several reasons, one of which is that the concept of morality based on genetics is....touchy)
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

Adam said:
Interesting. "My brother is my keeper" as a genetic characteristic using the "fear of The Other" baser instict to explain cultural animosity. Glad you expanded! (For several reasons, one of which is that the concept of morality based on genetics is....touchy)
Click to expand...
That's the truth!
 
Tress

Tress

I seem to remember reading that the "icky" feeling we get from the idea of sex with a relative has more to do with growing up around those people rather than sharing a genetic link. Many foster children will have a similar feeling of "ew" to the idea of having sex with a foster brother/sister, even though they don't share a genetic link. If that's true, it's not surprising that people who are related but never knew each other might feel an attraction.

Still, it seems gross to me. Blech.
 
Null

Null

Tress said:
I seem to remember reading that the "icky" feeling we get from the idea of sex with a relative has more to do with growing up around those people rather than sharing a genetic link. Many foster children will have a similar feeling of "ew" to the idea of having sex with a foster brother/sister, even though they don't share a genetic link. If that's true, it's not surprising that people who are related but never knew each other might feel an attraction.

Still, it seems gross to me. Blech.
Click to expand...
I think it's called the Westermarck Effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top