So long as they don't procreate, which should obviously be illegal as it'll surely physically and mentally cripple the poor thing, why should a brother and sister, or mother and son, or father and daughter, or whatever combination, be forbidden from having consensual sex even if all parties involved are properly of age?

I mean, it's icky, I'll agree to that, but what exactly justifies this being illegal? Or, is this just some remnant of puritanism in many western countries?

Is an aura of still lingering culturally puritan disgust and knowledge of the dangers of inbreeding really the only justification for these laws? As aside from the ladder, which when a non-issue makes this feel like a "That's just like, your opinion, man;" situation. Thus, I seem find myself oddly struggling to understand why incest is illegal, apart from simply being, again, a remnant of western puritan tradition.

  • Perhaps because there is always the potential because it could be conceiving (no birth control is 100% effective). Probably because of the ickiness factor (same reason gay sex was outlawed for so long). Perhaps there may be psychological damage to going down that road and we like to keep people from harming themselves. – Readin Apr 23 '17 at 5:44
  • @Readin A vasectomy or similar procedure could be performed to make one or both partners infertile. I think that was the intent of the OP, asking about situations in which it would be impossible to conceive. – Thunderforge Apr 23 '17 at 7:03
  • 2
    For what it's worth, incest does not automatically result in a damaged child. It just increases the likelihood that any recessive genetic disorders the family has will manifest. – Bobson Apr 23 '17 at 13:27

Browse other questions tagged .