If no pregnancy occurs and it is consensual, how can there be any ethical problem with incest?

Nope.
That's horrible but not an argument against incest.

user its the current year you can't just say somethings "gross"
Second gen incest babies have a way higher rate of genetic defects. Also chance they become some sort of fucked up catholic who practices incest.

>Second gen incest babies have a way higher rate of genetic defects
Right but the defects can just get aborted away, or (maybe soon) get edited out.

>user its the current year you can't just say somethings "gross"
I was being ironic.

In this case it becomes the exact same as homosexuality
Don't count on hypocrital champions of tolerance (with things already accepted) to admit it though

>user its the current year you can't just say somethings "gross"
One could argue (I won't) that ethical positions are nothing more but emotional responses. I believe the meta-ethical position Emotivism do this. So saying "incest is ethical wrong" is literary the same as saying "incest makes me feel uncomfortable".

Personally I'm of the opinion that as long as
1. You keep it behind your bedroom door and
2. You're not incredibly fucking obnoxious about it and
3. Your partner is fine with it
Just about any fetish is okay.

Ethics isn't necessarily nothing but an emotional response but in this case it pretty much is. Any emotional response that a large majority holds can become the basis for an ethical position.

>Just about any fetish is okay.

Yeah pedophilia is alright as long as you keep it in the bedroom

Kill yourself freak

>Ethical
Nice spook. Really though, familial sexual attractions are a big enough issue in developing children already, and it certainly wouldn't help if that sort of thing was socially acceptable. It is not sensible to allow incest for the same reason that it is sensible to have a minimum age of consent: sex fucks with childhood development (pun intended). Study psychology for a bit and you'll see the metric fuckton of issues caused by latent sexual attraction to family members. It's something that objectively needs to be quashed in order for productive social development to occur in a child.

>what is consent

Consensual cannibalism is more interesting case.

Kids can't give consent.

You know that's not what he meant, don't be disingenuous

Your sister doesn't find you attractive OP, sorry

>I didn't even see the last condition
The biggest problem with pedophilia is that the kid has no fucking idea what he/she is getting into.

I should probably add a corollary that it doesn't permanently disable a person since that hurts society as a whole.

Otoutos belong to their oneechans

Because from a purely practical stand point the overwhelming majority of incest cases are predatory, the result of an older male family member like an uncle or brother taking advantage of a younger female family member who can be groomed to accept and normalize the abuse.

and in the rare exceptions where both family members are consenting adults, it usually comes because of a long term separation where the bonds that they forge are short term enough to mimic romantic bonds before they have time to mature into familial bonds. In these cases the psychologically healthy option for both parties is to refrain from sexual contact and allow their bonds to mature, because allowing a sexual union to form would severely warp the relationship into something that humans have a natural aversion towards, and that can only lead to suffering down the road.

Giving the midwest internet access was a colossal mistake

>midwest

Yeah. The midwest. You never find fucking billboards like that on the highways of anywhere that isn't the midwest

The first part isn't an actual argument against incest, it's an argument against predation.
The second part focuses solely on the case where incestuous lust is a heat of the moment thing and assumes a 'natural aversion' when Westermarck doesn't even apply under the circumstances you've provided
Basically, you've given reasons why the question stated is rarely relevant, but haven't actually answered the question itself.

That's Florida my lad.
The pearl of the union.

source on webm please?

>The first part isn't an actual argument against incest, it's an argument against predation.
Yes it is. It's the recognition that predators can come up with any justification that they want, which might even sound really good on paper, but in concrete reality all they are doing is rationalizing behavior that society rightfully condemns. The numbers don't lie, most cases of incest involve an older male taking advantage of a younger female family member, which by itself is enough reason to punish the act. Purely idealistic arguments divorce the abstract from concrete reality so trying to come up with these "should it be legal if X, Y, and Z conditions are perfectly in alignment" ignores the real repercussions on the public health if such behavior becomes normalized

But that isn't relevant because that isn't an argument against incest, it's noting that incest and abuse are often tied together and attacking the abuse section of it.
From a practical point of view it doesn't make sense to normalize incest (and it isn't possible to anyway) but we're not talking from a practical point of view and we're literally going from a philosophical, 'what if' point of view.
It's like when you say 'is killing people always wrong', people will attempt to come up with circumstances under which it is not and you can't just dismiss them saying 'well that rarely ever happens', because nobody is asking you to legalize manslaughter.

...

>Purely idealistic arguments divorce the abstract from concrete reality
The concrete reality mixes incest with a plethora of other factors that you then attack, it is like attacking high-end mathematics as a field of study because many famous mathematicians hanged themselves or saying prostitution is wrong on an ethical level because abusive pimps exist.

It's by definition whether you agree or not.

The issue with pedophilia is consent

That's a ridiculously dogmatic view
Kids can most definitly consent, but they can also easily be pressured and dismissed as liars, which is why it's better to ban pedophilia altogether

>it usually comes because of a long term separation where the bonds that they forge are short term enough to mimic romantic bonds before they have time to mature into familial bonds. In these cases the psychologically healthy option for both parties is to refrain from sexual contact and allow their bonds to mature, because allowing a sexual union to form would severely warp the relationship into something that humans have a natural aversion towards, and that can only lead to suffering down the road.

t. degenerate who thinks sex is something trivial
Sexual bond should be the closest bond possible between two humans, which means that a sexual relationship between two siblings would reinforce their bond rather than weaken it
That's how it has always been until sexual "liberation"

Kids can't provide consent for the same reason drunk people can't, it doesn't count for shit.

Not him but that's really not how it works
A sibling's bond and a lover's bond are often separate and/or simply incompatible, like how both sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are highly corrosive and toxic but mixing them gives you water and table salt.

>The numbers don't lie, most cases of incest involve an older male taking advantage of a younger female family member

What numbers?
In police reports?
Maybe is it simply that sons seduced by their moms/little bros seduced by older sis are less likely to suddenly change their minds because of the pressure of society and decide to report the relationhsip claiming they never consented like younger females seduced by older males often do

What is pedophilia even?
For americans anyone under 18 is a child, meanwhile most civilized places have it as 14.

Long term romantic love actually ressembles sibling love a lot (once the three years or so of pure passion start to calm down)

Yeah it does, but those few years of passion can fuck up the sibling relationship, which then ruins the romantic one too.

It's an attempt at preventing a certain type of abuse because abuse laws are hard to set well and have fuzzy borders while age is a hard border.

That and people who are genuinely riding their brother's dick are unlikely to come out and say so because it has the ability to ruin their public life.

Why not?

>little bros seduced by older sis
This is my fetish

Drunk people or children? Drunk people because they're drunk.
As for children, it's the same reason they have different punishments compared to adults and why juvie is a thing instead of just sending them to prison, and the reason why they're not allowed to do certain things like hold a (formal) paying job or whatever.

From a hedonistic point of view, there is no argument to be had against incest, if there is no conceiving.
If you believe sex is for pleasure and that "as long as it doesn't hurt others there is nothing wrong with it", incest without conceiving is OK.

So, liberalism leads logically to full degeneracy.

Isn't rape a fine criteria?
Just have the jury decide if X person was in a position to consent, no jury would say "this child wae consenting".

>isn't rape a fine criteria
No, it's incredibly fucking vague as to what constitutes rape.

Well you kind of have to explain why it's degenerate even, since with genemapping we could potentially in the near future be able to just edit out the defects.

>Is there a relationship of authority?
>Did blackmail occur?
>Was there violence or provable threat f violence?
>Is the person/victim in question mentally able to comprehend he consequences ot their actions?
It's actually quite easy. Don't get mad at me now.

>and it is consensual

most of is not
read Foucalt ya pervert

>relationship of authority
So if I'm a girl in love with my boss and I really wanted his cock and ride him and he says 'aight', he just raped me?

>blackmail occur
This works.

>violence, provable threat of violence
This works...unless there was something like S&M play or hardsubbing play.

>mentally able to comprehend
How do you even judge this, do you give them a pop quiz?

And what about the condition, ever so popular, that one side suddenly withdraws consent? You also miss out on the whole 'no explicit 'no' does not imply 'yes'' thing which is popular these days, although I get the feeling you don't think it's all that valid.

"Most of it" is not the topic of discussion.

Your conception was a mistake.

>He just raped me
It depends, you are an adult, if you can prove he coerce you with his position of authority, then yes.

ers.

The rest of that post
>shitposting about feminist views
Well feminists think 15 year olds shouldn't have sex with older dudes while also claiming they should be sexually liberated and have sex with anyone they want so I tend to ignore they exist.

Why do you all care? Can you not get grills, so you want to schtupp your sister?

Found the rust belt baby

I ate my post:

Cont from first paragraph
For a child it would depend on others to try and find evidece, but it would generally be accepted that if they fall under the 'mentally incapable' but did not get viopently put into that situation then it's an abuse of authority.

So, your sister or your cousin Cletus?

incest is most often acted out by children on their relatives as a form of sexual exploration. its usually scolded, but in that scenario its not considered ethically wrong because the children involved arent culpable.

incest between adults is considered ethically wrong on the basis that almost every case seems to have obvious abuse going on.

>The biggest problem with pedophilia is that the kid has no fucking idea what he/she is getting into.
so tell them?

the rationalizations for limited culpability for drunks and children are 2 different cases.
drunks are aware of the context of an action, it is their impulse control that has been impaired. children are (ostensibly) unaware of the context entirely, in addition to being generally believed to have lesser impulse control than adults.

a drunk person knows its a bad idea to fuck you, its just that knowledge is muffled
a child doesnt know whether its a bad idea to fuck someone because theyve no context for what fucking someone has on their emotional, social, or physical well being. this is also compounded by most people believing that children simply do not have the brains to understand that context whatsoever. i think thats debatable, but i do also believe that theres no good reason to allow it that isnt overwhelmed by a billion bad reasons.

Fair enough
>shitposting
I was just parroting the current views which make rape a fuzzy thing instead of something like age, which is a hard line.

What if your sister wanted your dick at one point and you were wondering if it would've been bad to say yes
And yes, older sisters can be incredibly fucking thirsty.
And nah I'm not OP.

Yeah but the problem is 'mentally incapable' is the reason people say they can't give consent. How are you judging if they are mentally capable, do you give them a quiz? At what point does a person 'understand' what (s)he's getting into? Is it just the textbook answer of what sex is? Is it just knowing that and what an intimate relationship is?

>incest between adults is considered ethically wrong on the basis that almost every case seems to have obvious abuse going on.
Isn't that considering the abuse that goes on with it ethically wrong, and not the act of incest itself?
>sexual exploration...usually scolded
Not if your mom never found out :^)

Just called your mom with this information

>"Most of it" is not the topic of discussion.
When something is bad often enough you can reasonably write the whole thing off as bad in general.

>How to define it
Good question. You'd need a lot of time to debate among jurists and experts from medical fields and others to come up with a half decent definition.
In my idealism I still have hope we'd end with a more sensible system.

He specified the unique case in which your generalization doesn't apply at all, and more to the point, abuse isn't a characteristic of incest and incest isn't a characteristic of abuse and neither directly causes the other. It's like saying, again, that prostitution is bad because of pimps - you might argue it's bad, but this isn't a relevant reason.

>jurists
>experts from medical fields
As I understand WHO recently announced that not having a living cocksleeve (as a guy) or a boytoy (as a girl) counts as a disability - specifically, infertility. I don't know why you expect anything.

>Isn't that considering the abuse that goes on with it ethically wrong, and not the act of incest itself?
It is totally irrelevant if it's bad often enough, it can be reasonably attributed to the act itself.

>but it wasn't bad in this one specific case!
Everyone's an empiricist when it suits them.

>Is there a relationship of authority?

This one should apply only if it's a real unbypassable authority
Tired of hearing that dumb argument about teachers, most students dont respect their authority anyway, doubt anyone would submit to sex in its name

Explain why havent the West banned Islam yet then

I didn't find anything about that on the WHO site and their definition there hasn't changed either. So until I find the study I'm not sure.

>Implying being an incel isn't a mental disability
Just jokes.

I meant more "guard in a prison with provable coercion" or "blackmail" types.

Because the terrorists are heavily outweighed by the other muslims

>it can reasonably be attributed to the act itself
But it can't be. Correlation isn't causation and causation doesn't imply correlation, this is literally the first day of stat 101 material. Everyone who eats meat ends up dead ergo eating meat kills you? Or, say, 99.9% of people who die drank water at some point ergo drinking water is deadly? Can you actually finish senior high before coming on Veeky Forums?

>Everyone is an empiricist
Considering OP specifies the exact case where 0% will be abuse?

It might be possible if the headmaster threatened to expel you and in the heat of the moment you didn't realize that he can't just kick you out for no reason, or if he had a reason but offered to let it go if you gave succ.

And I specified that unique cases are irrelevant when something is bad often enough.

> abuse isn't a characteristic of incest
When it's a component of enough cases of incest, you can reasonably say that yes abuse is indeed a characteristic of incest, even if it isn't absolutely true.

>that prostitution is bad because of pimps - you might argue it's bad, but this isn't a relevant reason.
Pimps are completely relevant to the discussion of prostitution being bad or not.

Let me put this bluntly:
You may not be willing to accept convenient generalizations, but this rest of the world is more than willing to fight you on it.

>terrorism is the only thing wrong with islam

A better example is that a majority of people who have sex eat meat, so eating meat lets you have sex.

>It might be possible if the headmaster threatened to expel you and in the heat of the moment you didn't realize that he can't just kick you out for no reason, or if he had a reason but offered to let it go if you gave succ.

Then it's blackmail
The authority argument is bullshit when it's consensual and blackmail isnt involved

sauce?

>But it can't be.
Yes, it can.

> Everyone who eats meat ends up dead ergo eating meat kills you?
Everyone dies regardless, but everyone can avoid problems relevant to meat eating by abstaining from meat.

You may not be willing to admit that abuse is heavily relevant to incest, but that's okay, because your admission is itself irrelevant.

>When it's a component of enough cases of incest, you can reasonably say that yes abuse is indeed a characteristic of incest, even if it isn't absolutely true.
>even if it isn't true
>I'm allowed to say it
We are discussing incest on its own. You are not attacking incest. You are attacking abuse and saying that incest and abuse often come hand in hand so, lacking the bureaucracy and 1984 capacity to shuffle out the few cases of non-abusive incest, it's easier to just ban incest and be done with it. That is right. I agree fully. That isn't, however, the topic of discussion. You can't simply tie in an unrelated property that tends to show up in tandem and say they cause each other, or worse, that they don't cause each other but make each other bad anyway. If 90% of apples have worms in them, that doesn't make APPLES bad, it's just that they tend to have fucking worms in them and we don't want the worms.

>Pimps are completely relevant to the discussion of prostitution being bad or not.
You can't pimp without a ho.

>yes, it can
Causation isn't correlation, correlation isn't causation.

You're a cretin
The reason why many documented cases of incest come with abuse is because said abuse is the reason why these people expose their incest to begin with (by reporting to cops or in psycho websites)
People who have a happy consensual incestuous relationship have no reason to expose it to the world and thus aren't part of your statistics

The reason abuse and incest come hand in hand a lot is because of 1. availability and 2. ease of leverage
Your little sister / niece is right next to you all the time and often doesn't want to leave so it's easier to coerce her into taking your dick than someone who will just say 'no fuck off' and leave. They're also around ever since they're kids so it's easier to trick them into doing it (as they supposedly trust you - family) when they don't fully understand the ramifications of fucking you.
Ease of leverage is because you're family, so they tend to trust you, the potential for blackmail if you're older / 'have dirt' that they value more highly at the moment (if you don't I'll tell mom you swiped her credit card to buy X), or because they're afraid of pulling the family apart.
There's also reporter bias - nobody is going to tell you about the happy cases because it ruins their public image and they really would like to keep it a secret, but it's much more common for people to report these cases of abuse even considering that rape victims tend not to talk, since they can possibly benefit from the care and pity they receive and get removed from the abuser as opposed to literally nothing for a happy incest couple where it's shunned.
In short, it's not really that they're properties of each other, but that the prerequisite conditions for incest (being family) also tend to make abuse that much easier. Arguing that incest is itself abusive is imbecilic.

I'm no attacking anything. I'm not making any moral statements.
I'm saying society's ability to exclaim "truths" is a more powerful force than your ability to contradict them.

What about slavery and ban on homosex until recently?
Le soiciety is always right after all

Ahh yes, the "silent majority".

sauce OP

We're all part of one family, human race. It's natural to love your brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers,...

Yes actually those are perfect examples, I'm glad you brought them up.

It took a fratricidal war that nearly rent the nation apart in order to topple even a relatively tenuous "truth" of society.

It's called reporter or volunteer bias.

Yeah I'm sure, like nevermind that human society isn't static, or that we're on a board for discussion.

Imagine it's the 50s in the US and 80% of time you hear of a sexual interraction between a black male and a white female it's rape

Does that mean that interracial sex is linked with rape or is it because there's a heavy taboo around it which prevents non-abuse cases from being revealed?

I'm prepared to kill my brothers so people could love their brothers

>there was a war for homosexuality being allowed

Why the fuck did you come into a discussion thread about the existence or nonexistence of an ethical problem if you're not interested in discussion? Can't you just go to a history thread?

Humanities was a mistake

>Yeah I'm sure, like nevermind that human society isn't static, or that we're on a board for discussion.
You almost sound like you don't like the way the discussion is going.

Imagine how very hard it would be to spot a teapot orbiting the moon. Does that mean it's not there or is it because there's a serious lack of funding going towards detecting small porcelain satellites?

If you're upset over a bias, then your work should go towards mitigating the bias, not bemoaning that it's there.