Arguments for incest without pretext
Arguments for incest are quickly attacked. It’s been argued that incest is so taboo because it’s so very appealing. Many believe that the curiosities we see in regards to homosexuality, (because these taboos are lifting, we see them) are equally present for incest. The most obvious reasons for incest’s attraction are greater emotional comfort levels that exist within families. But practitioners of incest also swear that the sex is far superior. Other lesser reasons have included keeping wealth within the family unit, fostering a greater level of loyalty and even promoting desirable genetics in offspring. Albeit, the last reason is the most controversial.
Those most vehemently opposed to incest can’t get past the imagery of a brutish parent raping their children. While that is no doubt a crime, it is the same crime as is perpetrated by teacher’s, coaches, caregivers or kidnappers on any child victim. Yet we have an extra set of laws, just for families in regards to sex, usually irrelevant of age, or consent. Stranger rape and incest rape are the same thing. The legal system doesn’t need one set of laws to punish someone when they rape non-relatives and another when they do it to their own family. The only thing a special designation within the law does is punish family members who engage in consensual incest.
The societal battles to love who we want and to also engage in casual sex were fought and won decades ago. When two or more people consent to have sex with each other, they’re exercising their most basic fundamental rights. There’s no social harm by what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. This is a universal attitude in the western world, until we talk about incestuous relationships. Remove the word incest and everyone agrees with the above but put it back and the witch hunt quick returns.
There’s a certain yuck factor in the public eyes that occurs when discussing incestuous sex. But a large number of people are willing to accept consensual incest among legal age adults. The mentality is that sex between close blood related family members is morally taboo, but it’s none of anyone’s business. Their only concern is the well-being of the innocent youth of the household and rightly so. The emotionally and physically abused youth of today is society’s potential violent criminal of tomorrow.
The second biggest argument against incest comes from arm-chair geneticists; people who fear genetic defects among inbred children. But this is an ill-founded argument because genetic congruity especially in a first family mating passes on no more negative outcomes than seen with women who have children after 40. But more than that, we don’t prevent non-related people with hereditary genetic defects from having children. So what justifies stopping two healthy people from making a baby just because they’re siblings? Genetics based laws against procreation, allow the state to dictate who can and can’t have children. Godwin’s law applies here because recent history has given us a real world example of what happens when any government can use fear of genetic contamination as a means to exercise control. The state should have no access to anyone’s bedroom or biology.
