MAP Forum

Are you pro consensual incest or anti consensual incest?

Not sure I'm anti. It's definitely not for me, and there's a massive danger of coercive control.

There are two stages here. The first is moderate: if society understands that erotic fun is harmless, then masturbation and petting between close relatives will no longer be considered incest. The second is a little more radical - penetrative sex. At this stage, many people have great concerns, because it may not always be fun in some contexts. However, if everything happens by mutual consent and respect, taking into account contraception, then the risk is significantly reduced.

Parent-child: anti due to the absolute power a parent has over their child who relies on them for shelter, sustenance, etc (but I'm not sure if prison for the parent actually makes the child's life better... it's a huge dilemma). This extends to step-parents, so it's not just about being blood related. I don't mind if the child is an adult who lives independently, I guess
Siblings: pro
Cousins: pro
Uncle/ aunt with nephew/ niece: Tentatively pro, more accepting if it's not blood related (that could just be a preference, though?)
Grandparents/ grandchildren: Mixed feelings, it may also just be an aesthetic preference but I don't feel comfortable with it. But I'm not sure that my "discomfort" is a good reason to restrict it.

I don't like the term "pro" because it implies that I actively support it, when my opinion is closer to "it shouldn't be restricted". Whatever, though. When I say "pro" that's what I mean.

Very much pro.
Like with AMSC, much of the disdain for incest is baseless. Even the thing about birth defects is a large myth.

Fragment makes a point with the absolute power a parent may have over their child. But this only applies if the child is a minor, and is caused by the oppression of minors in general which is what leaves them powerless, rather than the incest itself. Besides the problems of that power dynamic are bound show themselves in other non-sexual ways, and I don't consider sexual abuse to be inherently worse than physical or emotional abuse.

I'm pro consensual incest and incestual relationships which happen as a result of mutual attraction.
I don't understand the hatred society has for incestuous couples.

I think the specification of "consensual" is really interesting here. Mostly because many people who would say they are anti would do so because they believe one or both of the parties cannot consent (either due to age or unequal power dynamics). So, like it's not really a discussion that is framed in a way that could have a hardline debate about it. Doesn't matter since everyone seems to be of one mind on it, but very interesting none the less.

But, just because a proper debate can't be had about the question doesn't mean healthy discussion can't be made on the topic, of course!

I'd say that the important factors here are what exactly the dynamics between individuals in play are. Everyone has a different dynamic with each different member of their families. I for one am an avid opponent of the nuclear family as a forgone conclusion of our societal structure, believing it to be a product of colonization and the intentional destruction of other community bonds in the service of patriarchal and capitalistic ideals. Which is so say fuck it, all the better if that's literal. But, I know that I have deeply traumatic bonds with some of my own family members and would truly gain no satisfaction from any level of intimacy with them - and that's interpersonal not only a product of the nuclear family. I do believe that healthier and much sexier dynamics can occur despite the inherently oppressive dynamics expected of the nuclear family, though, and would absolutely support intimacy of any sort under the right circumstances.

Ethics aside, it's still pretty hot when it's an unhealthy dynamic (because, again, fuck the nuclear family). I just wouldn't wish non-consensual sex on any real person.

RoosterDance wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:52 am Very much pro.
Like with AMSC, much of the disdain for incest is baseless. Even the thing about birth defects is a large myth.

Fragment makes a point with the absolute power a parent may have over their child. But this only applies if the child is a minor, and is caused by the oppression of minors in general which is what leaves them powerless, rather than the incest itself. Besides the problems of that power dynamic are bound show themselves in other non-sexual ways, and I don't consider sexual abuse to be inherently worse than physical or emotional abuse.

Really? That is interesting that the birth defects are a large myth. Can you cite me any sources because from what I've heard and seen, when family members have a child together, there is always a defect, at least nine times out of ten. Also, regarding the whole power dynamics thing, I don't believe that to be a factor of inherent abuse. It's the abuse and misuse of that power that makes it abusive. Doesn't matter how wide the power dynamics are, if you force/manipulate someone with your power, that is abuse. You also have to ask yourself: why would anyone manipulate and/or coerce someone to do something? Well, because it was something that is unwanted. There is no such thing as manipulation, exploitation, and coercion in a sexual interaction/relationship that is wanted/mutual, regardless of the power dynamic or knowledge gap. The only time where someone could argue such things exist in a mutual interaction is when a person who has more power and a bigger knowledge gap is, for the lack of a better word, irresponsible or does not care for what happens to the person who does not have as much power and a bigger knowledge. Other than that, there is no such thing as sexual abuse in a mutual sexual interaction. Point. Blank. Period.

Brain O'Conner wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:52 am Really? That is interesting that the birth defects are a large myth. Can you cite me any sources because from what I've heard and seen, when family members have a child together, there is always a defect, at least nine times out of ten.

Where have you seen this? Like give me some actual real-life examples. I would like to see them because every instance I see of inbreeding, perfectly healthy babies are born. No more defects than any other coupling. For example, I've been following r/inbreeding for years now (Not sure if I can link). Plenty of people talking about their incest babies over there and I've not seen a single mention of a defect. Maybe the thousands of users over there are all just lying or delusional. Maybe those that do have defective offspring just don't want to post about it. But I'm not convinced of that because I say there plenty more evidence to support my point.

We could simply look at history in the time periods inbreeding was more socially accepted. Famously, quite a few royal families regularly inbred and many perfectly healthy babies were born. I've heard it said that the defects only showed themselves after multiple generations, but what proof do we have of even that? I think it's important to remember that the general understanding of genetics and even broader anatomy was a lot less accurate back in those times, and steeped in much superstition. If these defect babies were born, it could have been due to a completely unrelated cause.

But even ignoring all that, what about all the animals that we intentionally inbreed? Like race horses. Plenty of healthy babies are form from that. I don't see any reason to believe that it works any differently for humans.

When I sat and thought logically about how genetics work, I formed a pretty darn good guess where this myth originated. This thread on r/genetics explains it pretty well. Basically, If your family has a history of genetic disorder, then breeding within that family increases the chances of that disorder being passed onto the offspring, as both parents are likely to be carriers of the disorder gene. Unlike what the myths would have you believe, genes don't degrade over generations, nor can you magically create disorder genes from normal ones. Well, you can through random mutation, but the chances of that are super low and are not affected by who the parents are.

RoosterDance wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:07 pm Where have you seen this? Like give me some actual real-life examples. I would like to see them because every instance I see of inbreeding, perfectly healthy babies are born. No more defects than any other coupling. For example, I've been following r/inbreeding for years now (Not sure if I can link). Plenty of people talking about their incest babies over there and I've not seen a single mention of a defect. Maybe the thousands of users over there are all just lying or delusional. Maybe those that do have defective offspring just don't want to post about it. But I'm not convinced of that because I say there plenty more evidence to support my point.

Ever heard of the Whittakers? Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXLJvZc3a0s&t=17s. These are a very inbreed family and they obviously have a lot of issues. Not only that, but historical figures like Cleopatra, The Hapsburgs, and Egyptian pharaoh's who suffered deformities and other things.

RoosterDance wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:07 pmWe could simply look at history in the time periods inbreeding was more socially accepted. Famously, quite a few royal families regularly inbred and many perfectly healthy babies were born. I've heard it said that the defects only showed themselves after multiple generations, but what proof do we have of even that? I think it's important to remember that the general understanding of genetics and even broader anatomy was a lot less accurate back in those times, and steeped in much superstition. If these defect babies were born, it could have been due to a completely unrelated cause.

But even ignoring all that, what about all the animals that we intentionally inbreed? Like race horses. Plenty of healthy babies are form from that. I don't see any reason to believe that it works any differently for humans.

When I sat and thought logically about how genetics work, I formed a pretty darn good guess where this myth originated. This thread on r/genetics explains it pretty well. Basically, If your family has a history of genetic disorder, then breeding within that family increases the chances of that disorder being passed onto the offspring, as both parents are likely to be carriers of the disorder gene. Unlike what the myths would have you believe, genes don't degrade over generations, nor can you magically create disorder genes from normal ones. Well, you can through random mutation, but the chances of that are super low and are not affected by who the parents are.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. When I was doing some digging, I found out the two recessive alleles are the things the primarily carry the harmful genes that cause all of the potential diseases and deformities. In a genetically diverse population, there is a very low chance of two people having two of the same recessive alleles or something, but in a inbreed population, there is not much genetic diversity and therefore there is a higher chance of two people mating carrying a recessive allele that are harmful. Here is the source: https://scienceofbiogenetics.com/articl ... e-analysis. While you are right that inbreeding does not automatically cause defects in an offspring, the chances are higher in an inbreed population than a non-one due to genetic diversity. It's not really about such relationships being inherently harmful, it's really about chances here and trying to grow a healthy population.