Another moral question - adult content!

[B. de Corbin]

What do you think about this hypothetical situation...

John and Susan brother and sister.

While traveling abroad, they decide that it would be fun to try having sex. Susan is already using birth control, but, to be safe, John also wears a condom.

After having sex they agree that, while it was a nice way to become closer, they they will never do it again, and keep this as a private moment of which they will never speak.

Have they done anything morally wrong?

Why or why not?

[callmeclemens]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

No. While incest is both taboo (and icky). To me that would not be immoral.

Had they not usef various forms of contraception my answer would be different.

[Ophidia]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

While you didn't state it, as long as they are both adults in the eyes of the law, I see nothing wrong w/the scenario.

Consensual, safe sex. Nothing wrong w/that.

I may be biased, though - I come from southeastern stock, and a lot of my relatives are probably a bit more closely related than absolutely necessary.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

While you didn't state it, as long as they are both adults in the eyes of the law, I see nothing wrong w/the scenario.

Yeah - we'll call them both adults, acting of their own free will.

[callmeclemens]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

Had, they had genetically knowing the risks, not used that, I would then see it as immoral.

[anunitu]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

I believe the main reason for the taboo was and is that you would(if conception was the outcome) take the considerable chance of having a child that would be deformed(in many senses) and then would become at least in these days a ward of the state or in older times a burden on the family(rural farming) where each person needed to work the farm as they grew able. I personally believe this was made taboo more for the sake of the ruling class,because they depended on the "Common" folk to provide food and other things. It would be considered a "Sin" against the ruling class. I also believe the religious ban on contraception was also based on the needs of the ruling class. More people to work,more food for the rulers. If indeed protection was used,I could not actually see this act as Taboo,a bit unconventional but not passing into Taboo. I believe we are all taught this because of what happened in the past when there was no sure way of preventing pregnancy. Though I myself would find this problematic,I can't condemn others if protection is used.

[JamesByrne]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

Put simply yes its immoral imo.

I dont believe religion should have a say in morality because I believe morality is culturally generated and while religions have been an expression of the culture they exist in today they arent. Since clture generates morality and since sex between siblings breaks cultural taboos it is immoral.

Edit : Regardless of individual belief religious or otherwise.

[Siloh]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

I'm not really comfortable saying whether or not it was morally corrupt, since I think that has to do with individual beliefs (for instance, I think either of this party could decide at some point that this action conflicts with newly adopted morals, so they may look back on it as an amoral moment, even if that code of morals wasn't present at the time), but ethically? A-okay. It conflicts with my morals, but there's nothing wrong ethically with two adults having consensual sex.

What would possibly tilt that decision (besides lack of contraceptives) might be if one were massively older than the other, where one was barely an adult (18-abouts) and the other very much an adult who assumedly took on some manner of authoritarian role in raising their sibling. Simplified, I think it would be wrong for a 32-year-old to commit incest with her/his sibling when that sibling is a decade or more younger. That puts a lot of weird power ratios into play and would be a much more difficult case to judge as ethical. Well, JiMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

Couldn't find the edit post button...

PS, this is at the top of the "new posts" list currently, and I was just thinking about potential new members coming to PF and reading this first thing--hilarious.

"OH GOD! I knew I wasn't ready for this!"

Would be better if they were spam-evangelists seeking to save us. :X

[Ophidia]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

Upon further thought, I'm not sure if incest is actually as bad for potential offspring as people make it out to be. I'm not a scientist or geneticist, though, and I struggled with those petunia & fruit fly tables in biology, but... AFAIK, from horse & dog breeding and whatnot, just because parents are related doesn't mean that all their offspring will sport defects. I do know that if there is a recessive gene, the likelihood of it being expressed when both parents have the gene are more likely to occur - which is why things like hemophilia & porphyria are associated with royal lines that tended to keep it in the family. Prion diseases can also be inherited (like Fatal Familial Insomnia). But there are plenty of non-related people out there popping out kids knowing that those children will be born with defects and continue having them, so I don't see how related adults choosing to have children together would be much different.

That's about the only thing I'd find morally/ethically questionable - if you knew that you & your sibling had a risk of passing on a genetic disorder to a child, but did it anyway. And I feel it's wrong for unrelated parents to do that to their kids, too. But it's the decision to pass something on to a child, not the act of producing said offspring, that is the problem.

[Jasmine]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

I have to agree with: morally - ok, practically - eww.

Morals don't really apply hear assuming both are consenting adults. In practice though it sounds icky to me personally. Our own upbringings will define whether we think this is 'wrong' or not.

[Gardenia]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

Consenting adults having safe sex? Yeah, I don't see anything morally wrong with this particular situation.

[Ophidia]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

I have to agree with: morally - ok, practically - eww.

Morals don't really apply hear assuming both are consenting adults. In practice though it sounds icky to me personally. Our own upbringings will define whether we think this is 'wrong' or not.

Eh heh heh... I've got some really good-looking cousins. Or at least, they were good-looking. Been awhile since I've seen any of them - they may have mutated into Cletus the Slack-Jawed yokels for all I know :P

[Dumuzi]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

I think that's morally wrong, but that's just me. I think family members should be protected and know for a fact they can be left alone with and live with people that won't become sexual partners. This goes for siblings and parents/children as well.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

I think that provided no harm is done, I don't have the authority to step into the issue should I discover it later. It's not so much that I approve, I'm not overly fond of incest. I simply neither have nor want an obligation to act on the matter. Until that changes, their actions are on their conscience, I won't hold such actions against them but I also won't personally approve of the plan or act.

Note: this is on the assumption that both parties are adult, consenting, legally able to give consent, <insert long list of conditions that boil down to, no one is victimized>. Once one party becomes a victim, the prior paragraph dies a fiery death.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Another moral question - adult content!

For me it would be wrong. But, my grandparents on my mothers side were first cousins. And you guys know I'm nuts LMAO