Athiesm and sex

[jduster]

i would never have sex with members of my own immediate family, even if there was no social stigma attached to it.

[LegendarySandwich]

i would never have sex with members of my own immediate family, even if there was no social stigma attached to it.

Neither would I (none of them are hot enough (just kidding, of course)), but I can see no logical reason why it is bad if it doesn't produce offspring and it doesn't involve children.

[teifuani]

I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

[LegendarySandwich]

I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

Thanks for the input!

I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

Now that I'm an atheist, I'm attempting to cleanse myself of all irrational beliefs, so this is why I am curious whether there are any good objects to "harmless" incest being harmless.

EDIT: I think I'm the oddball of the group, because I don't think I would object to having sex with one of my relatives (a first cousin), as long as I used a condom.

[Sophus]

I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

Well put, and I agree. It's probably because that "incest is wrong" is the "common knowledge" people are afraid to say that it would ever not be immoral.

[LegendarySandwich]

I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

Well put, and I agree. It's probably because that "incest is wrong" is the "common knowledge" people are afraid to say that it would ever not be immoral.

Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

[Heretical Rants]

Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

ZOMG AND TWO POSTS FROM NOW HE'LL HAVE 2010 POSTS AND THE YEAR IS 2010 RIGHT NOW!!!


AAAH AND ALMOST ALL OF HIS RECENT POSTCOUNTS CORRESPOND TO A YEAR IN WHICH I HAD A BIRTHDAY!!!  COINCIDENCE!!!!!

[LegendarySandwich]

Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

ZOMG AND TWO POSTS FROM NOW HE'LL HAVE 2010 POSTS AND THE YEAR IS 2010 RIGHT NOW!!!


AAAH AND ALMOST ALL OF HIS RECENT POSTCOUNTS CORRESPOND TO A YEAR IN WHICH I HAD A BIRTHDAY!!!  COINCIDENCE!!!!!

If he suddenly stops posting from this site in a mysterious fashion when he has 2012 posts, I'll be a little more than suspicious. Suspicious of what, exactly, I don't know, but suspicious of SOMETHING.

[Sophus]

Who are the three to vote "Very nice"?  

Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

And now I have 2010.... and the current year is 2010. Spooky....

[Heretical Rants]

And now I have 2010.... and the current year is 2010. Spooky....

I beat you to that...


Uhh... I mean, Indeed! I may have to convert to some kind of religion to explain this phenomena.

[The Magic Pudding]

by Sophus » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:42 pm
Who are the three to vote "Very nice"?  

Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

And now I have 2010.... and the current year is 2010. Spooky....

This post has the time stamp 8:42, which is 7:42 standard time.
7 is god's number and 42 is the answer to life the universe and everything.
Destiny truly converges on us, I'm going to hide under my bed.

[Asmodean]

...Did I mock the banned troll at some point in this thread? Any one remember?  

[Kylyssa]

I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

American mainstream Christianity has adopted plenty of things that are not in the Bible.  For instance, the objectors to polygamy often claim that it is against God even though many of the Bible's main characters practiced polygamy and no objection was noted.

[LegendarySandwich]

I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

American mainstream Christianity has adopted plenty of things that are not in the Bible.  For instance, the objectors to polygamy often claim that it is against God even though many of the Bible's main characters practiced polygamy and no objection was noted.

True (I would like to note that I have no objection to polygamy either).

And they try to claim that all morals come from the Bible. Heh.

[Sophus]

I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

American mainstream Christianity has adopted plenty of things that are not in the Bible.  For instance, the objectors to polygamy often claim that it is against God even though many of the Bible's main characters practiced polygamy and no objection was noted.

Or, for that matter, premarital sex. There is not one verse in the Bible that condemns it.