I think that in a "state of nature," incest is usually pretty harmless. Genetically, it generally takes multiple generations for effects to show up, and if it's happening organically it's unlikely to continue across generations. Historically it happened with the nobility, but only because it wasn't happening organically but because of political pressures, which remained consistent over time. Imo the historical example of the nobility is a big part of why it's so taboo, while for example Japan doesn't have the Hapsburgs or a similar example in their cultural memory and it's much less taboo there.
That's not to say, "incest is good, actually," I think very often it's bad because there's a lot of possibility for abuse or a power imbalance, and especially because of the taboo, it's very sus that two people would be down with it who just happen to be in the same family. But I think it's valid in some cases to chalk it up to cultural differences. If it's not as taboo, then it's more likely to occur organically in which case like I said I think it's pretty harmless.
Worth noting - incest doesn't cause problems all by itself. The problem is that siblings and first cousins are more likely to both inherit a genetic abnormality or disorder, and then pass that on to their kids. If a genetic abnormality or disorder isn't present then there's no genetic problem to be passed down.
Also, I'll keep mentioning this, the taboo against first cousin marriage in European cultures is very recent. Like 150-200 years recent, and even that's not consistent.
Hard agree. The genetic problems are really not that bad.
Incest is bad because of the massive power imbalances within families and this is not a cultural thing at all. A parent/child relationship can never be really consensual because of the immense emotional dependency at all ages, and with young adults often financial dependency as well. Older siblings have immense influence on younger siblings as well.
Additionally, we are genetically hardcoded not to want to fuck people we grew up with. It's pretty impossible to feel actual romantic attraction to family members, including step-siblings because of this. If a dad abuses his daughter, it's not because of actual attraction, it's because he's getting off on the power.
The only exceptions to this are estranged family members who specifically didn't grow up together, those can and do occasionally develop feelings for each other. When you see an article about some 30-year-old dude being in love with his 50-something mom, it's usually that. There's still questions to be asked about these cases, but those are the only situations where it's arguably morally defensible imo.
The tendency to not be attracted to people you grew up with is an innate thing, but it's not absolute, relationships do sometimes develop between childhood friends, for example. And I don't feel confident saying that for example tribal societies, or even the large multi-generational households that were more the norm before the Industrial Revolution, always necessarily had the same power dynamics of modern day families, since the nuclear family is a relatively recent thing. But I do agree with you in the context of the modern day.
Sex with parents is a pretty strong and in so far as I am aware universal taboo. I'm sure there's an exception somewhere but I'm not aware of it. I imagine that when sex with your parents isn't presented as leading to immediate doom (Oedipus) it's likely to be due to some mythic significance or underlying plot or theme than a reflection of societal norms at the time.
But that does also assume fertility. As a species we have a generally poor level of fertility. So in any given environment most instances of incest even among fertile age persons would not result in inbreeding. Either through the baseline low level of fertility, or that not everyone can breed with their incest partner. So, the scary thing for us to consider is the possibility of there being evolutionary benefits for being gay with your dad and cumtown being right.
I think that in a "state of nature," incest is usually pretty harmless. Genetically, it generally takes multiple generations for effects to show up, and if it's happening organically it's unlikely to continue across generations. Historically it happened with the nobility, but only because it wasn't happening organically but because of political pressures, which remained consistent over time. Imo the historical example of the nobility is a big part of why it's so taboo, while for example Japan doesn't have the Hapsburgs or a similar example in their cultural memory and it's much less taboo there.
That's not to say, "incest is good, actually," I think very often it's bad because there's a lot of possibility for abuse or a power imbalance, and especially because of the taboo, it's very sus that two people would be down with it who just happen to be in the same family. But I think it's valid in some cases to chalk it up to cultural differences. If it's not as taboo, then it's more likely to occur organically in which case like I said I think it's pretty harmless.
That is my hot take about incest.
Worth noting - incest doesn't cause problems all by itself. The problem is that siblings and first cousins are more likely to both inherit a genetic abnormality or disorder, and then pass that on to their kids. If a genetic abnormality or disorder isn't present then there's no genetic problem to be passed down.
Also, I'll keep mentioning this, the taboo against first cousin marriage in European cultures is very recent. Like 150-200 years recent, and even that's not consistent.
Hard agree. The genetic problems are really not that bad.
Incest is bad because of the massive power imbalances within families and this is not a cultural thing at all. A parent/child relationship can never be really consensual because of the immense emotional dependency at all ages, and with young adults often financial dependency as well. Older siblings have immense influence on younger siblings as well.
Additionally, we are genetically hardcoded not to want to fuck people we grew up with. It's pretty impossible to feel actual romantic attraction to family members, including step-siblings because of this. If a dad abuses his daughter, it's not because of actual attraction, it's because he's getting off on the power.
The only exceptions to this are estranged family members who specifically didn't grow up together, those can and do occasionally develop feelings for each other. When you see an article about some 30-year-old dude being in love with his 50-something mom, it's usually that. There's still questions to be asked about these cases, but those are the only situations where it's arguably morally defensible imo.
The tendency to not be attracted to people you grew up with is an innate thing, but it's not absolute, relationships do sometimes develop between childhood friends, for example. And I don't feel confident saying that for example tribal societies, or even the large multi-generational households that were more the norm before the Industrial Revolution, always necessarily had the same power dynamics of modern day families, since the nuclear family is a relatively recent thing. But I do agree with you in the context of the modern day.
deleted by creator
Sex with parents is a pretty strong and in so far as I am aware universal taboo. I'm sure there's an exception somewhere but I'm not aware of it. I imagine that when sex with your parents isn't presented as leading to immediate doom (Oedipus) it's likely to be due to some mythic significance or underlying plot or theme than a reflection of societal norms at the time.
But that does also assume fertility. As a species we have a generally poor level of fertility. So in any given environment most instances of incest even among fertile age persons would not result in inbreeding. Either through the baseline low level of fertility, or that not everyone can breed with their incest partner. So, the scary thing for us to consider is the possibility of there being evolutionary benefits for being gay with your dad and cumtown being right.